English translation — דברים א

1.

On the verse¹

"On the other side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses began to explain this Torah, saying,"

Our Sages of blessed memory say²

that "in seventy languages he explained it to them."

And likewise

(before crossing the Jordan)

Moses commanded that "And it shall be, when you cross the Jordan ... and you shall write on the stones all the words of this Torah, explaining well"³,

Our Sages of blessed memory say⁴

that "explaining well" means that one should write it in seventy languages.

In Tractate Soferim⁵

we learn: "An incident with five elders who wrote the Torah for King Ptolemy in Greek, and that day was as difficult for Israel as the day the calf was made,

because the Torah could not be translated according to all its needs"⁶.

It is not understood: from that which Moshe "explained to them" the Torah "in seventy languages",

and moreover — from the command "and you shall write on the stones etc. clearly" in seventy languages,

it

is proven,

that there is in this an advantage and benefit<sup>7</sup>,

namely, as one says that the translation into the Greek language is entirely a difficult matter,

and most difficult.

Even more perplexing is the reason for this — "that the Torah could not be translated in its entirety" — since the Torah had already been translated earlier⁸

into all seventy languages,

as above⁹.

And it is difficult to say that in tractate Sofrim it refers to a matter of "difficulty" that is connected only with the translation into Greek and not with the others of the seventy languages — because:

a)

The "seventy languages",

in which the Torah was <b>already</b> translated,

include also the Greek language; and on the other hand

b)

From the laconic language in Masekhet Soferim "that the Torah was <b>not</b> able <b>to be translated</b> etc."¹⁰

it is implied,

that that which the Torah cannot be translated in its entirety,

is meant thereby the translation into every language¹¹

3)

And on the contrary,

One finds in another place that the Greek language has in this a complete advantage over the other languages,

because according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

(and so is also the halacha)¹²

one must write the books

(Tanach)

only in the holy language,

not in any other language,

except for <b>Greek</b>¹³.

4)

Furthermore,

it stands in the Yerushalmi¹⁴

: "They searched and found that the Torah cannot be translated in all its need except into <b>Greek</b>!"

The main difficulty is in this that the braita above

(in Masekhet Sofrim)

says: "And the day was hard for Israel like the day the calf was made" — how is it possible to say,

that because the Torah cannot be translated "all its needs,"

is this so much hard and negative until it is similar to

(the day and time of)

the making of the calf¹⁵?

B.

This language above

("like the day the calf was made")

we find also in Masekhet Shabbat¹⁶,

that "that day Hillel was bent and sitting before Shammai like one of the students¹⁷,

and it was hard for Israel¹⁸

like the day the calf was made."

Also there requires explanation,

why “that day” was so “difficult for Israel” until to compare it to the “day on which the calf was made.”

Rashi¹⁹

explains “difficult — because Hillel was a prince and humble.”

It is not understood: at first glance only the first detail,

"because Hillel was a prince,"

a reason why this was difficult — that being a prince Hillel should be "bent and sitting before Shammai like one of the students"; but the second detail is entirely,

on the contrary,

a reason and cause how Hillel from his side could be "bent etc."

(even though he was a prince)²⁰

because he was a "humble one"²¹.

There are commentators²²

who say the explanation

(in Rashi²³)

"because they insulted Hillel who was a prince and humble"; with this is also explained the comparison to "the day the calf was made,"

when also then there was "they insulted Moses who was

(a prince and)

humble²⁴

and said²⁵

make for us a god who will go before us"²⁶.

This is, however, seemingly not sufficient: even after comparing "they kicked at Hallel" to

"they kicked at Moshe",

is, however, the point of the substance of "the day on which the calf was made" was

(not the "kicking" at Moshe,

however harsh that may be,

but)

the sin of idolatry²⁷

i.e.²⁸.

3.

And one can explain the explanation in this,

and with the preface of the precision of the language in both of the aforementioned articles

(in tractate Soferim and in tractate Shabbat)

"<b>as the day</b> on which the calf was made"

(and not "<b>as the making</b> of the calf",

"as the sin of the calf",

and the like).

Simply, the day of the service of the calf was <b>the day after</b> the day of the making of the calf,

as it is written that on the day

(and after)

of the making of the calf,

Aharon said²⁹

"A festival to the L-rd <b>tomorrow</b>"

(meaning thereby to push them off³⁰,

because "he was confident that Moshe would come and they would serve the Omnipresent"³¹)

; and the

(main³²)

sin of the calf was on the morrow — "And they rose early <b>on the next day</b> and offered burnt offerings etc."³³.

And "hard" "like the day the calf was made" means: the difficulty

(difficulty)

does not consist

(so)

in the actual making of the calf

(because even afterwards there could have been

(as Aaron said)

the "festival &lt;b&gt;to the Lord &lt;/b&gt;tomorrow",

they will serve the Place),

but in that it is "&lt;b&gt;the day &lt;/b&gt;the calf was made",

a day connected only with the calf

(not — matters of "the Place"),

consequently it is a day of preparation for the sin of serving the calf &lt;b&gt;afterwards&lt;/b&gt;,

tomorrow.

4.

And likewise it is regarding the translation of the Torah "that they wrote for King Ptolemy the Torah in Greek": the explanation in

(Masechet Sofrim&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;)

"the Torah was not able to be translated &lt;b&gt;to its full need&lt;/b&gt;" — one means: an exact literal translation and in the order of early and late as it stands in the Torah

(in the Holy Tongue),

"the Torah is not able to be translated".

And the deficiency consists in that it gives a &lt;b&gt;place &lt;/b&gt;that from this there could come out &lt;b&gt;afterwards &lt;/b&gt;an error etc. —

When a gentile

(King Ptolemy)

will afterwards study the Torah

(in Greek)

as it is translated precisely,

"all its needs,"

it is possible that he should not understand the correct interpretation in many places in the Torah,

and moreover — he will understand the opposite of the true intention.

Therefore we find,

that when the seventy elders translated the Torah for King Ptolemy³⁵,

"the Holy One, blessed be He, placed in the heart of each

one and one counsel and they all agreed to one opinion" and "thirteen things they changed in it"³⁶

— they did not translate the Torah "all its needs"*³⁶.

And in this consists the above comparison in Maseches Sofrim — "And the day was hard for Israel like the day on which the calf was made"³⁷

: Just as the "day on which the calf was made" was "hard",

because it was the preparation that <b>the next day</b> came out³⁸

the serving of the calf,

and so too

is the day on which they translated the Torah into Greek a hard day for Israel,

because this can bring³⁹

to interpretation of the Torah improperly and contrary to the intention,

as above.

And similar to this one can say about the day "that Hillel was bent and sitting before Shammai":

This alone that they decreed then according to the opinion of Shammai is not so "difficult,"

because after all it is indeed "Hillel was silent before Shammai"⁴⁰,

"he did not persist in his dispute"⁴¹,

4.

5.

5.

The matter was according to halacha⁴².

The

(main)

difficulty in this consisted in that it could &lt;b&gt;bring &lt;/b&gt;that

(also)

later they should rule the halachos like Beis Shammai,

contrary to the rules of halacha as it is for generations,

that "Beis Shammai in a place of Beis Hillel is not a mishnah"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;.

And it can be said,

that this is the intention of Rashi's commentary "because Hillel was a prince and humble": Rashi explains the matter of the difficulty in this: the halacha is like Hillel

(Beis Hillel)

is because of the two qualities — "prince and humble": the halachic authority in general is the prince

(even)

regarding

the Av Beis Din⁴⁴

(and here it was the opposite — Shammai was indeed the Av Beis Din)

; and "humility" — as the Gemara says⁴⁵

regarding Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel in general,

that "for what reason did Beis Hillel merit that the halacha is established like them? Because they were pleasant and forbearing."

6.

Since all matters in Torah are with utmost precision,

it is understood,

that the comparison of the two matters

(the translation of the Torah for King Ptolemy,

and that same day Hillel was bent over etc.)

to the day of the making of the calf is not only in that the day can cause a matter

(or event)

undesirable

(like the day of the making of the calf),

but also from the aspect of the <b>content</b> of the day of the making of the calf

(and the sin of the calf in general).

The explanation in this: it is known⁴⁶

that the commentators on the Torah elaborate regarding the matter of the making of the calf,

that Jews did not intend a matter of idolatry, G-d forbid,

but only a leader who should lead them in place of Moses

(and not in place of G-d),

and their claim

(in the language of the verse)

"for this <b>Moses</b>, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what became of him"⁴⁷.

That is, they wanted that there should be an intermediary between the Supreme One and them,

based on that which the Supreme One Himself had established — seemingly: "for this Moses the man who brought us up from Egypt" — not the Supreme One Himself,

but through Moses

As an intermediary between the Above and Jews.

So that a Jew down here should be connected with the Above and serve Him as it needs to be with <b>all </b>the powers of the soul,

also with his intellect and with his feelings,

it is when G‑dliness is drawn down, as it were, down here,

until in a manner of <b>knowing </b>that there is a G‑d⁴⁸,

knowing — in addition to <b>believing</b>⁴⁹

that there is a G‑d, which is the level of G‑dliness as it is in His^« essence,

simple in the utmost simplicity.

Godliness is revealed to a "man" below,

a soul in a body,

and is clothed in him with a wondrous unity&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

until like Moses who is "man of God"&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;,

a man whom one can see and hear.

And so that Godliness should be more drawn down and heard in the world,

in this physical world,

and in all matters,

they thought that it needs to be drawn down through a lower level in this world,

and through this it will have more effect and in the world&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;.

<b>And after</b> as it was afterwards,

that the Almighty commanded "And make for Me a Sanctuary

(of gold and silver etc.)⁵³

and I will dwell in their midst"⁵⁴,

whose essence is the Ark and the two cherubim⁵⁵,

by which there was the indwelling of the Divine Presence among Jews,

"And I will speak⁵⁶

with you from above the cover, from between the two cherubim which are upon the Ark of the Testimony"⁵⁷.

And it can be said that this is the explanation of what is explained in the Midrash⁵⁸

that the sin of the calf came from the fact that at the time of the Giving of the Torah, when "And the Lord descended upon Mount Sinai"⁵⁹

the Jews saw how the Almighty descended with the chariot and they confused one of them,

the face of the ox that is in the chariot,

they wanted here <b>below </b>a thing from below⁵⁷,

in the manner as above it is — the supernal chariot.

And even after the making of the calf

(before we served it)

Aaron said "a festival to the L-rd tomorrow",

that from this could come forth an elevation,

that when Moses will come, it will be revealed to Jews that the matter of the calf is no reality,

— simply: when there would not have been the "and they rose early

(the satan goaded them so that they would sin)

— there would not have been the

"And they sinned",

But on the contrary: Moses would have burned the calf in the presence and with the agreement of all of Israel,

And it is obvious that there would have been no worship of the calf from the outset

And it will express the unity of God even more,

That "there is none besides Him"⁶¹.

And that an intermediary can be only Moses

(Intermediary <b>who connects</b>)⁶²,

Whom the Most High sent and made as His messenger to the Jews.

In practice, however, from this there resulted

(by some of Israel)

on the next day the &lt;b&gt;sin &lt;/b&gt;of the calf,

the sin of idolatry,

a violation of the unity of God.

7.

And this is the concept of "difficult" in "the day on which the calf was made"

(not the day on which they worshipped the calf)

: the very thing that there should be a &lt;b&gt;separate&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;

existence — even if one intends that through this should be drawn down Divinity etc. as above — since this is not by the command of God

(i.e., togetherness and connection)

from this can result the sin of idolatry,

a matter of two authorities.

Not so when this comes from the aspect of the command⁵⁷,

in the manner as it was in the Mishkan, the Ark, and the Cherubim as mentioned above,

it is then understood only that through this <b>passes through</b>⁶⁴

the word of G‑d.

There is no existence or essence in the thing itself,

and consequently will

from this not emerge any error of two domains, heaven forbid.

And this is the content of the midrash as above: The calf was detached from

(the face of the ox that is)

the chariot: as this is above,

this is a part of the supernal chariot — this is a matter of G‑dliness and reveals G‑dliness; but when this becomes detached separately and below,

not as a part of the chariot,

it is not included in the nullification of the chariot to its Rider,

from this can come forth <b>the sin</b> of the calf,

the sin of idolatry.

8.

Similar to this is it in connection to the translation of the Torah into the Greek language that they wrote for King Ptolemy,

"And that day was as hard for Israel as the day when the calf was made":

The translation of the Torah by Moshe into seventy languages or the fulfillment of the command "And you shall write on the stones all the words of this Torah, well explained" in seventy languages,

since this is

(was together with the Torah as it is in its source in the Holy Language and it is)

came by command,

it gave no place to interpret the Torah not according to the intention,

because in all these seventy languages the command was heard

(and the holiness of the Torah as it is in the Holy Language and was spoken from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He⁶⁵).

But when they translated the Torah at the demand of King Ptolemy

(not by command of God)

into the Greek language,

from this could arise a matter not

As it were: instead of that in "In the beginning God created" one should learn the Oneness of G‑d,

as the truth is,

one will interpret that "there are two authorities and the first created the second"⁶⁶

; and likewise in the other verses in the Torah

(that they changed for King Ptolemy),

which in most of them could have been a giving of place to an interpretation that brings out the opposite of the Oneness of G‑d and the opposite of the Torah⁶⁷.

9.

Just as this is regarding the day on which the calf was made,

and in more detail in the translation of the Torah into Greek,

likewise this is even more in detail in the Torah itself,

regarding the dispute of Shammai

(Beis Shammai)

and Hillel

It is known⁶⁸

that Shammai

(and Beit Shammai)

has his root from the attribute of gevurah

(din)

and Hillel

(Beis Hillel).

(Beit Hillel)

is from the attribute of chesed

(rachamim).

And therefore

(in general)

Beit Shammai is stringent and Beit Hillel is lenient.

The difference between the attribute of din and the attribute of chesed and rachamim is analogous to what he says in the midrash⁶⁹

regarding chesed and emet,

"Chesed said, 'Let him be created ..

and Emet said, 'Let him not be created.'"

That is,

from the perspective of the attribute of din there is no place for the world,

but not so from the perspective of the attribute of rachamim.

After the creation of the world comes from this out,

that from the side of the attribute of justice, the nullification and the breaking of the world is heard⁷⁰,

And the attribute of kindness and mercy, its subject is,

on the contrary — to continue Divinity into the world.

From this is understood the difference in depth more in the content of the matters between the attribute of gevurah and the attribute of chesed: from the aspect of the attribute of judgment it is heard that the world is a thing,

separated

(in one's feeling)

from Elokus,

which therefore the avodah and the order of shvirah and bittul must be; and from the aspect of the attribute of chesed,

that one draws down Elokus into the world,

it is heard

(the opposite),

that the world is

(in potential — and one must reveal it)

— unified with Elokus,

therefore one must do and accomplish "in" the world,

reveal in &lt;b&gt;her &lt;/b&gt;Elokus.

When there are two possibilities — whether to be machmir or to be meikil — Beis Shammai is lechumra: to separate oneself from

(matters of)

the world; and Beis Hillel lekula — to be mevarer and to mezakek one's portion in the world.

In the finest of fine points it comes out,

that from the side of the attribute of judgment there can come out in the chain of descent a movement of "two authorities" as it were,

and one must wage war with it,

since the existence of the world is not unified with Divinity; but from the side of the attribute of kindness and mercy the unity of Hashem is heard in perfection.

And this is the parallel of "On that day Hillel was bent and sat before Shammai like one of the students, and it was as difficult for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was made": since on this day the halacha was according to the opinion of Shammai,

the overpowering of the attribute of judgment over the attribute of kindness and mercy,

they were afraid that through this the conduct would become

And the halacha is thus also for the future⁷¹,

which will, through <b>Hishtalshelus</b>, be able to give a place for "two authorities" in the finest of the fine

(Only — one must wage war and nullify it).

Yud.

This is, however, only what the two days

(the day that they wrote for Talmai HaMelech the Torah in Greek and the day that Hillel was bent and sat before Shammai)

are difficult like the day on which the calf was made, because of the <b>concern</b> that from this should come forth <b>in the finest</b> the opposite of the unity of Hashem.

In practice, from the translation of the Torah into Greek and from that "day when Hillel was bent and sitting before Shammai" no opposite matter came out

(not like at the day of the making of the Golden Calf).

And one may say even more: just as on "the day the Golden Calf was made" Aaron said "&lt;b&gt;A festival &lt;/b&gt;to the Lord &lt;b&gt;tomorrow&lt;/b&gt;",

which simply means that if one were to use it properly,

there could come from it a matter of &lt;b&gt;festival&lt;/b&gt;,

and they served the &lt;b&gt;Holy One blessed be He&lt;/b&gt;,

as above,

indeed came out that way⁷²

from the translation of the Torah into Greek,

when the seventy-two elders translated the Torah for King Ptolemy

(not "all its needs")⁷³,

they changed several things,

starting from "God created in the beginning" instead of "In the beginning God created",

not only did it also come down to the nations the unity of God as it is said in the Torah,

But it became a halacha⁷⁴

that the

(only)

language with which one may write books

(Sifrei Torah)

is Greek⁷⁵

(and it is valid to read from it,

defiles the hands⁷⁶

etc.)⁷⁷,

The completeness of the clarification of the script and language⁷⁸

Greek.

And likewise it can be said regarding "that day when Hillel was bent and sitting before Shammai like one of the students,"

that not only did it not result that the halacha should remain for generations like Shammai

(Beis Shammai),

rather this effected⁷⁹

also upon Shammai

(Beis Shammai)

a matter of submission and nullification.

And it can be said that therefore there are several places⁸⁰

where Beis Shammai [rule] leniently⁸¹.

Yes.

Since the words of the righteous are living and enduring forever, and especially matters that are in the Torah which is eternal,

it is understood from this,

that also that which Aaron said "A festival for Hashem tomorrow" regarding the seventeenth of Tammuz,

it will certainly be fulfilled,

and as it is stated in the writings of the AriZal⁸²

that "the secret hinted in this"

(in the words of Aaron)

is "the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future turn it

(the seventeenth of Tammuz⁸³)

into a festival

And it is found that "a festival for Hashem tomorrow" is in essence, and this "tomorrow" is after a time etc.

And it can be said that in inwardness this is the festival that comes out through the repentance of Jews on the making of the calf,

which in the future will be revealed,

and the oneness of Hashem will come in revelation also in relation to the three impure shells,

that the sparks that are in them

(the purpose and inwardness of the intention in them)

are transformed to good and elevated to holiness⁸⁴.

12.

And it can be said that <b>until«this </b>is also regarding the translation of the Torah into seventy languages in the very last generations,

And especially the wellsprings of the innerness of the Torah,

as is known how his holy honor, my father-in-law, the Rebbe, endeavored that they should translate

(also)

matters of the innerness of the Torah into seventy languages,

in order that also those who do not yet have any connection to learn and understand in the holy tongue,

or even in Yiddish⁸⁵,

should also reach them the <b>wellsprings </b>etc. of the innerness of the Torah.

That through this one effects the clarification of the seventy languages⁸⁶,

not only as they are included and together with the holy tongue,

but rather as each one stands on its own,

which moreover is this through bringing down the deep concepts and explanations of the oneness of G-d in the teachings of Chassidus into the language of each and every nation⁸⁷,

and through this one also effects the clarification of the seventy nations themselves,

And this brings near and hastens the "He is coming, my Lord, the King Messiah"⁸⁸,

that "Then I will turn to the peoples a clear language, to call all of them in the name of the L-rd, to serve Him with one accord"⁸⁹,

What then will be the יהפכו ימים אלו לששון ולשמחה ולמועדים טובים⁹⁰,

and the end of the days of

the Egyptians

(which began on the seventeenth of Tammuz)

— the Ninth of Av⁹¹,

will be a great holiday⁹²,

very soon,

with the coming of Moshiach our righteous one.

(Rosh Chodesh Shevat+<b>)</b>

5740)