English translation — ואתחנן ב

A.

It is known the word of the Alter Rebbe¹,

that "Rashi on Chumash is the wine of the Torah",

which "wine of the Torah" means secrets of the Torah²,

the inner dimension of the Torah.

It has already many times³

been spoken about the principle that Rashi himself says regarding his commentary — "I have come only for its plain meaning"⁴

— that this is not a contradiction to that which in the books of the great ones of Israel is pointed out the "wonders" in Rashi's commentary on the Torah in <b>all</b> parts of the Torah,

both in the part of halacha in the Torah,

both in remez, derush and sod — because Rashi's commentary is first and foremost — the <b>plain meaning</b> of the verse: only in this "pshat"

(which is indeed — "of the verse" and beyond remez, derush, sod — is only with the — in the verse it fulfills the <b>plain meaning</b>)

are there

(hidden)

wondrous matters from <b>all</b> parts of the Torah.

But from the above-mentioned emphasis and also from the language of the Alter Rebbe — "Rashi on Chumash is the wine of Torah" — it is implied,

that regarding "the wine of Torah" it is not only that there exist

(hidden)

hints and the like

(in Rashi's words)

on matters of secrets of Torah,

but that Rashi "is the wine of Torah,"

that every explanation of Rashi is "I came only for its plain meaning,"

and together with this

it is "the wine of Torah"⁵.

And in any case, there are certain Rashi commentaries on Chumash,

where one sees in them &lt;b&gt;openly&lt;/b&gt; how they are “the wine of the Torah”: and one of the Rashi commentaries is in our parshah on the verse “You have been shown to know, etc.”&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;.

2.

Rashi focuses on the word “הראת” and says “like its Targum: אתחזיתא”,

and afterwards he continues: “When the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah, He opened for them seven firmaments, and just as He tore open the upper ones, so He tore open the lower ones, and they saw that He is unique; therefore it is said: You have been shown to know”&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;.

One must understand: What is the connection of this continuation in Rashi's commentary "When the Holy One, blessed be He, gave etc. opened etc." to the beginning of his commentary "like his translation, it was shown" — at first glance these are two separate matters: the beginning of the commentary is the

(more precise)

translation of the word "הראת" — "you were shown"⁸

; in contrast, the second part of Rashi's commentary speaks about the <b>general</b> meaning of the verse — that Jews <b>saw</b> "that Hashem is God etc."

for at first glance this conclusion is superfluous.

One must say that Rashi thereby emphasizes,

that with his commentary he comes to explain

(not only the word "הראת",

but)

"therefore it is said <b>you were shown to know</b>",

and the general content of the verse].

And if so,

then Rashi should have divided his commentary into two discourse-beginnings: first the heading and the word "הראת"¹⁰

and say "כתרגומו אתחזיתא",

and afterwards copy "אתה הראת לדעת" and explain: "כשנתן הקב"ה כו' פתח כו'"?

3.

And one can explain the explanation in this:

In the previous verse it says¹¹

"Or has God tried to come to take for Himself a nation etc. with trials, with signs, and with wonders, and with war

and with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm etc. as all that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt <b>before your eyes</b>",

And then the Torah continues "You have been shown to know etc."

one would simply learn

(and indeed several commentators learn thus¹²)

that the "You have been shown to know" is a continuation of the previous verse,

and it refers to the signs and wonders¹³

that the Most High performed "in Egypt <b>before your eyes</b>",

and in the language of the Sforno¹⁴

: "All these God, may He be exalted, showed you,

to know,

so that you may contemplate and know without doubt that the Lord, He is God, etc."

And this is what Rashi <b>rejects</b> in his commentary "When the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah, He opened, etc." — that the matter of "You have been shown, etc." is not connected to the signs and wonders "which the Lord your God did <b>in Egypt</b> before your eyes",

which is stated in the previous verse,

and here also the wonders that are in the following verse are not meant¹⁵

(where it speaks about the giving of the Torah)

"From the heavens He let you hear, etc., and on the earth He showed you, etc." — rather, "You have been shown" is a new matter,

which comes to tell about a distinct event at the time of the giving of the Torah — "He opened for them the seven firmaments, etc."

And the necessity in the simple meaning of the verse to learn that "You were shown" does not refer to what is stated earlier nor to what is stated later,

but is a matter in and of itself — is from the language "showed",

as follows.

4.

Since the verse uses the language "You were shown" — you

(the people of Israel)

were shown,

and not "You saw" — you saw — i.e.

i.e.

it is emphasized that it was an action of another to "show",

is seemingly not smooth,

why is emphasized "you" the recipient of the action,

and not the doer of the action; it should have stated "the Almighty showed you",

and as it states earlier "which the Lord did for you" and also later¹⁵

"made you hear His voice etc. showed you His fire etc."?

From this¹⁶

Rashi forces,

that in this verse it speaks about a different "showing",

where it is emphasized that it was an action of "showing" and together with that it was not in the manner of an actual action,

like "I showed you",

but in a manner that the novelty is

(mainly)

on the part of "you" the recipient of the action: the shower only <b>nullified</b> a thing,

the <b>action</b> consists in the removal of the obstacle.

And therefore Rashi teaches that here it does not speak about the miracles and wonders that the Most High showed the Jews,

which is in the manner of an action <b>literally</b>,

opened up a thing,

but here it speaks about the revelation of "<b>opened</b>

"there are seven firmaments etc.": The Most High has

(did not perform an action of "showing" Himself to Jews,

He only)

removed the "screen" of the "seven firmaments",

and &lt;b&gt;automatically &lt;/b&gt;"they saw that He is unique"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;.

H.

Based on this it follows,

that there is a fundamental difference in the interpretation of "You have shown" between the interpretation of the aforementioned commentators and the interpretation of Rashi:

If one learns that "You have been shown" refers to the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt,

it follows that to the Jews were shown the <b>miracles</b>

(and not that <b>shown</b> means "Hashem is the God etc."),

rather from the miracles the Jews <b>understood</b> and <b>knew</b> — "to know" — that "Hashem is the God"

(in the language of the aforementioned Sforno "so that you <b>contemplate</b> and know etc. that Hashem is the God").

But according to Rashi's interpretation,

to the Jews was <b>shown</b> <b>the very thing itself</b> that "Hashem is the God",

and in the language of Rashi "they <b>saw that He is unique</b>".

And therefore Rashi concludes "therefore it is said 'you have been shown to know'".

With this Rashi finishes

(not only to emphasize,

that "&lt;b&gt;therefore &lt;/b&gt;— upon the event — it is said 'you have been shown to know',

and not upon the miracles which are recounted in the preceding verse,

but also)

to emphasize,

that

(according to this interpretation, the interpretation also changes from "you have been shown to know",

that)

these are not two separate matters

("you have been shown" — the miracles,

and through this you will come "to know that the Lord is God"),

but this is &lt;b&gt;one &lt;/b&gt;thing: the "to know that the Lord

is God" is in a manner of "you have been shown" — "&lt;b&gt;see &lt;/b&gt;that He is unique".

6.

Another reason why Rashi does not want to learn that "You have shown" refers to the miracles in Egypt

(or to "from the heavens He made you hear His voice etc. and on the earth etc.")

— Rashi hints in his language "and they saw that it is &lt;b&gt;unique&lt;/b&gt;",

which is the translation of "there is none besides Him":

The miracles in Egypt demonstrated that "I am the Lord"&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;,

and not any other, heaven forbid

("the Lord, He is God"),

and as it says several times regarding the Egyptians "and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord"&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

(and the like)

; but nevertheless,

from them there is no proof that "there is none besides Him"&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;.

Because it could be that the Almighty is indeed greater and stronger than everyone,

and therefore no one can prevent and nothing can, heaven forbid, hinder Him in the miracles "to take for Himself a nation from the midst of a nation" and the like,

but from this there is no proof that there is no other existence, heaven forbid, with power and ability

(although with a lesser power than God).

Specifically at the Giving of the Torah,

when "He opened for them seven heavens, etc. —

(and)

they saw that He is <b>singular</b>" — not only that there is no existence of power that can <b>compare</b> to Him, G-d forbid,

but there is absolutely no other existence besides Him — "they saw that He is <b>singular</b>",

there is no other in the upper realms and in the lower realms,

"There is none else besides Him".

7.

One must, however, understand the change of language in Rashi's commentary:

He begins with "&lt;b&gt;He opened &lt;/b&gt;for them seven firmaments",

and immediately afterwards continues "And just as &lt;b&gt;He tore &lt;/b&gt;the upper ones, so &lt;b&gt;He tore &lt;/b&gt;the lower ones"?

One could say,

that regarding the upper ones — seven firmaments — the expression "opened" is appropriate

(&lt;b&gt;cf. &lt;/b&gt;"the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;),

but not regarding "lower ones".

But,

as said,

Rashi begins with “<b>He opened</b> for them seven firmaments”,

and continues “And just as <b>He tore</b> the <b>upper ones</b> etc.”

If the change of language in Rashi is due to the difference between “upper ones” and “lower ones”,

then Rashi should have said “And just as <b>He opened</b> the upper ones so <b>He tore</b> the lower ones”.

From the change of language in Rashi regarding the upper ones themselves it is implied,

that in the upper ones there were two actions — both “opened” and “tore”; unlike in the lower ones there was only one action — “tore”.

But in this one sees the “yayin shel Torah” is Rashi’s commentary as follows.

8.

The wording “opening” — one opened a certain thing — is a matter of correction,

addition of completeness,

<b>Renewal </b>of completeness²²,

But "kria" that one must tear,

means a matter of nullifying something,

for which tearing the garment nullifies the garment²³

(or its importance²⁴),

Tearing²⁵

of the Red Sea nullifies the matter of the sea covering²⁶

— and the father of them all — the law common everywhere — tearing of the decree²⁷.

The difference between these two matters in the service of man:

In the service of man in the world, there are generally two modes,

one mode that requires the service of "petach",

and a second mode that requires the service of "kera".

This is the difference between the service of clarifications and the service of trials²⁸

: the service in general worldly matters is the service of clarifications,

when one has to do with physical things in a manner of involvement,

and one must "open" an "opening" to <b>reveal</b> their purpose,

that they were created to serve their Creator,

and also to reveal the G-dly spark within them,

which is the true reality of every thing in the world.

It is, however, sometimes when "&lt;b&gt;tests &lt;/b&gt;Hashem your God you etc."&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;,

that there comes a matter of trial,

whose essence is to conceal and hide Divinity,

and the divine vitality within the trial falls to the lowest level until it is in concealment and hiding entirely.

And in order that &lt;b&gt;the &lt;/b&gt;divine spark be revealed,

the service of "opening" is not sufficient,

rather there must be "tearing",

to tear apart and nullify the concealment and hiding.

The difference in the manner of avodah is not only regarding the object in the world

(the cheftza),

but

(and primarily)

in the avodah of the person

(the gavra)

himself:

The avodah of the person himself in the avodah of birurim is in the manner of "petach" — he "opens" his powers,

mochin and middos,

beginning from hisbonenus etc. in tefillah which effects the birur in the nefesh habehamis,

and afterwards the birur of his portion in the world,

in all matters of the world through the kavanah leshem shamayim in his eating and in all other needs of man.

The manner of the service itself in the service of trials is — "tear": he does the opposite of his nature and habit,

service with self-sacrifice that is above measure and limitation,

what is in the service in such a manner is — "just as he tears the upper ones, so he tears the lower ones",

exactly as he does not reckon and nullifies the concealments and limitations and screens of his <b>upper</b> powers,

pleasure,

will,

intellect and emotions,

so he also nullifies the screens of the <b>lower</b> powers within him,

the limitations of the body and the animal soul.

And at the time that a Jew stands in trial "and overcomes against every obstacle — then he <b>tears</b> all the screens that conceal and obscure the light and vitality of God, and it is found that the light and vitality of God goes out from concealment to revelation"³⁰.

9.

Regarding the two modes in avodah,

is in general the difference how Elokus is revealed through "elyonim" or through "tachtonim":

(Olamos)

"Elyonim" reveal Elokus from their very existence itself,

in a manner of "pesach".

And in the manner that this is in the reality of the heavens literally,

it says³¹

"The heavens declare the glory of G-d and the firmament tells His handiwork",

that the heavens themselves "tell" and reveal "the glory of G-d",

the "firmament" is "telling" the "handiwork" of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And likewise regarding all "elyonim" — the existence of each world and each level reveals another aspect in Elokus,

which all is included in the matter of the light³²

: just as the existence of the light itself reveals the matter of the luminary,

so too in the worlds and sefiros above,

their very existence reveals Elokus.

not so "lower ones",

and especially the reality of the yesh,

is not only that it does not reveal G‑dliness,

but on the contrary,

the essence of the reality of the yesh is that its source is not felt in it,

until one thinks that its existence is from itself, heaven forbid, and it is not "caused by any cause that preceded it"³³.

It turns out,

that the existence of lower ones,

the reality of the yesh,

"says" that <b>it</b> exists.

Who is the Necessary Existent,

"Whose existence is from His own essence and He is not caused by any cause that preceded Him, heaven forbid, and therefore He alone has the power and ability to create something from absolute nothing and naught, without any other cause or reason preceding this yesh"

(as explained in Iggeret HaKodesh³³)

— nevertheless, this is a matter that comes by way of <b>inference</b> and compulsion from <b>human intellect</b>,

not that the reality of the yesh <b>reveals</b> it,

on the contrary,

looking at the reality of the yesh one sees an existence

(in its own right)³⁵],

And therefore,

is the revelation of G‑dliness in “lower ones” comes through breaking and nullification of their existence — “tear”.

And therefore Rashi uses the term “opening” only regarding the “upper ones”

(seven firmaments)

and not regarding the lower ones,

because the matter of “lower ones” is indeed “regarding the concealment of His light, blessed be He, and darkness multiplied manifold until it is full of husks and sitra achra that are against G‑d literally, saying ‘I am and there is none else besides me’”³⁶,

and the revelation of G‑dliness comes not through “opening” — revealing the good and holiness that is hidden there,

but through <b>breaking</b> and <b>nullifying</b> their importance

(existence)³⁷,

as above.

Tenth.

Nevertheless, Rashi says regarding the “upper ones” not only the term “opening” but also the term “tear” — because regarding the Divine revelation that was “when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah”,

did

should have been the "krei"

(not only from "tachtonim",

but)

also from "elyonim".

the explanation in this: it is known the interpretation of the Alter Rebbe³⁸

on "Atah hareyasa lada'as": "Atah — You, Atzmus Ein Sof baruch Hu, hareyasa — have shown Yourself, lada'as — that one should know You."

And one could say,

that what Rashi is precise "see that it is <b>unique</b>",

he is thereby alluding to the above explanation of the old Rebbe — because the definition and aspect of <b>unique</b>,

which is completely higher than "one" which can be that <b>there are</b> two³⁹

and certainly more so than "first" which <b>compels</b> "second",

is connected with the Essence of the Infinite One, blessed be He⁴⁰.

a)

It comes in the manner of "hera'ah" — by itself and automatically,

for in Atzmut the category of activity does not fit,

and the revelation of Atzmut is in a manner of automatically⁴¹.

b)

The "lada'at" is in a manner of "hera'ah" — "sensory sight"⁴²,

for the manner of revelation of Atzmut is specifically in sight

(not in comprehension)⁴³].

And since in the Giving of the Torah there was a revelation of the Essence⁴⁴

it becomes "just as He tore the upper realms, so He tore the lower realms",

as follows.

Yes.

The explanation of this:

The Rambam in Laws of the Foundations of the Torah⁴⁵

brings the end of the verse from "You have been shown to know, etc." in continuation of the

laws where he speaks about the commandment of knowledge in "the existence of God",

and his language: "He is that the prophet says 'And the Lord God is truth'; He alone is truth, and no other has truth like His truth; and that is what the Torah says 'There is none else besides Him,' meaning there is no true existing entity besides Him like Him."

What the explanation of "אין עוד מלבדו" is a completely different content than according to Rashi's explanation

(In the inner dimension of the matters)

According to the Rambam, the explanation of "אין עוד מלבדו" is,

that there is, so to speak, an existence besides Him,

but "there is no existence &lt;b&gt;truly &lt;/b&gt;besides Him &lt;b&gt;like Him&lt;/b&gt;".

And it is understood the necessity for the Rambam's explanation

(As explained in many places&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;)

: If one would learn,

as it is seemingly implied from the simple meaning of the verse "אין עוד מלבדו",

that there is no existence besides Him,

it would turn out that there is altogether no existence of the world,

and that one cannot say,

because then there is certainly no existence and all the more so no importance, heaven forbid, in the performance of mitzvos

(Whose concept is that one takes an object from the world and with it fulfills a mitzvah and draws into it holiness).

Therefore the Rambam says "that is to say",

that the explanation of "there is none besides Him" is

(not that there is no existence at all besides Him,

but)

"there is no true existence besides Him like Him",

i.

e.

the world is an existence,

but not a true existence⁴⁷

and even not "like Him".

According to this

(the inner meaning of)

explanation in Rashi — "and they saw that He is <b>unique</b>" results the explanation of "there is none besides Him",

that not only is the world not a true existence,

but He, may He be blessed, is the one and only existence altogether,

there is no other existence besides Him.

And seemingly: how does the explanation fit with that the matter of Torah and mitzvos is connected with the existence of the world,

as above?

And the explanation in this: the matter of "He is alone" comes from the aspect of Yechid,

which is the <b>revelation</b> of the Essence of the Ein Sof, blessed be He,

(as above from the explanation of the Alter Rebbe),

and regarding the Essence of the Ein Sof, blessed be He — "there is no existence at all"⁴⁸.

12.

And this is the difference between the explanation of the Rambam and the explanation of Rashi:

The Rambam speaks about the matter of "there is none besides Him" as this is a matter in halacha and relevant to halacha.

And since in halacha the existence of the world is relevant

(with which one fulfills the laws of the Torah — makes halacha retroactively⁴⁹

the existence of the world),

Therefore the Rambam interprets "there is no existence <b>true</b> besides Him <b>like Him</b>".

What this speaks about regarding the level in G-dliness, how He, as it were, lowered Himself into the aspect of "first existence" to bring into existence all beings.

That from the perspective of the level there is a "place" for the existence of the world and afterwards — the existence of the world,

But since the world has no existence of its own essence,

only from the side of the Above,

the "First Existent",

therefore it is not a true existence.

Rashi, however, explains the verse as it is in the plain sense of Scripture — the story of how the Above revealed Himself to the Jews "when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah".

And since at the time of the giving of the Torah there was the revelation of the Essence

(as explained in many places),

therefore,

says Rashi — who "is the wine of the Torah" — "see that He is unique",

because from the aspect of the Essence "there is no existence at all",

that regarding Atzmut it is not applicable to say "the word Echad",

because "Echad" does not indicate the negation of the existence of the worlds,

the oneness of "Hashem Echad" indicates that the existence of the worlds is unified with the Most High

(According to the explanation of the Semak⁵²

on the word "Echad",

that there are <b>here </b>seven firmaments and earth

(which are hinted at in the chet of Echad),

and the four directions of the world

(which are hinted at in the dalet),

and all of them are nullified and unified with the Aluf of the world,

the alef of Echad).

And the manner of unity is connected with the divine power

(the aspect of the light),

which is in the category of the worlds.

And in the language of the Rambam "First Existent"; but from the perspective of the Essence,

one does not say First,

One,

but rather "Unique",

that "He alone is He and nothing else besides Him"].

13.

And this Rashi hints at in the change of language above in his commentary — "He opened for them the seven firmaments and just as He tore the upper ones so He tore the lower ones":

"He opened for them the seven firmaments" points to the revelation of G‑dliness that is in the seven firmaments themselves,

in

(worlds)

upper,

i.

e.

that when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah, there were revealed to Jews not only the lower, so to speak, levels in G‑dliness,

which are on earth in the first firmament,

but all aspects of revelations in G‑dliness,

which in general are hinted at in the "seven firmaments";

But that which the higher beings reveal G-dliness,

is this only a level in G-dliness which is connected and has a relation to light and revelation which this expresses itself through higher beings,

but the Essence of the Infinite One,

which is higher than every aspect of light and revelation,

is just as lower creations do not reveal Him,

so too

(and even more so)

it is not possible that He should be revealed through the higher beings

(even not through the highest aspect of light).

How does the Essence see itself,

as it were — is this in

(<b>tearing</b>

( <b>nullification</b> of the worlds,

when it is heard as "there is no existence at all"⁴⁸.

And this is Rashi adding that after the matter of "He opened [the heavens]" etc., was then the concept that Essence revealed itself,

and this was expressed in that "Just as He tore the upper [heavens], so He tore the lower [heavens]" — both upper and lower have no existence,

"He tore" their existence,

and through this "they saw that He is unique" — there was a revelation of the Essence,

unique⁵³.

14.

Since all Jews "saw that He is unique" at the time of the Giving of the Torah,

it is understood that this is a matter that pertains to the giving and receiving of the Torah,

to the fulfillment of the Torah and commandments of Jews.

And all the more so from this, that everything that a Jew sees or hears is a lesson in his service of G‑d⁵⁴

— it is certainly all the more so that the matter of "You have been shown to know etc.,"

"He opened for them the seven firmaments, and just as He tore open the upper ones, so He tore open the lower ones" is a general lesson that pertains to the actual service in the fulfillment of the Torah and commandments of Jews throughout all generations.

The general lesson from this that "see that He is unique" is understood simply,

and as Moshe,

recounting that "You have been shown to know ..

there is none else besides Him" concluded at the end of the parshah⁵⁵

"And you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I command you today."

Because seeing that "He is unique",

it is understood,

that a Jew must fulfill the will of God in a manner that it makes no difference what &lt;b&gt;his &lt;/b&gt;

(the person's)

will is — since that "He is unique",

ultimately the will of the Above will be carried out.

And so too can nothing prevent a Jew from fulfilling the will of Hashem and conducting himself in all his affairs according to the instructions of Hashem in His Torah,

because there is no other reality

(true⁵⁶)

in the world that should conceal, heaven forbid, and not allow fulfilling His will.

And not only the general matter that "see that He is alone" pertains to the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos,

but also the details "He opened for them the seven heavens and just as He tore the upper ones etc.'",

for from the above-mentioned proof at the giving of the Torah, Jews took the instruction and empowerment in the two manners and levels mentioned: the service in the manner of opening

(in the manner of the service of clarifications)

; and the service in the manner of "tearing"

(in the manner of the service of trials)⁵⁷.

15.

According to the above, it is also understood regarding the revelation of G‑dliness that comes through the service of man:

Just as at the Giving of the Torah,

through the fact that “<b>cleave</b> etc.” was the “You <b>were shown to know</b>” — “<b>see</b> that He is unique,”

the revelation of <b>the Essence</b> in a manner of <b>seeing</b> that brings to “to know,”

knowledge and recognition — so too is it in the service of man,

that specifically the service of “cleave” the upper and lower [realms],

the service that is beyond measure

And the limitation,

the service of trials from the aspect of yechidah in the soul

(which "tears" all barriers and limitations of upper and lower [worlds]),

brings the revelation of the aspect of "yechidi",

the Essence of Ein Sof, blessed be He,

and this brings to "to know"

("for the Lord your God tests you to know"),

that there is in him "knowledge and comprehension and feeling <b>in</b> Him, blessed be He, <b>in the aspect of</b> seeing"⁵⁸,

the "recognition of G-dliness as if seeing with physical sight"⁵⁹.

And specifically through this service,

which is primarily in the time of exile⁶⁰,

one hastens even more the coming of Mashiach our righteousness when there will be "<b>And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see</b>"⁶¹,

the seeing of the essence,

"eye to eye they shall see"⁶²

with physical sight⁶³.

But then it will not be in a manner of "krei" — since then "the physicality of the body and the

lm"⁶⁴,

will essence be revealed in the reality of the world itself,

that the true reality of the created being⁶⁵

is the true being⁶⁶

Speedily, in our very own days,

with the building of the third Holy Temple,

which will be of hewn stone⁶⁷,

the altar of wood⁶⁸

etc. and together with this — the Sanctuary, O Lord, Your hands have established⁶⁹.

the night and day of Shemini Atzeret 5743)