English translation — חה"ש

A.

In the Shulchan Aruch at the end of the laws regarding the festival of Shavuot,

the Alter Rebbe writes¹

: On the day after the festival of Shavuot it is forbidden to fast according to the essential law because it was the day of slaughtering at the time when the Holy Temple stood, namely that on that day they would offer the burnt-offerings of appearance which they could not offer on the festival itself because they have no element of food for the soul and one does not desecrate the festival for them since it is possible to offer them after the festival, for Atzeret has completion all seven days,

And although this is according to the words of Beit Shammai, but according to the words of Beit Hillel it is permitted to offer them even on the festival itself, nevertheless since in this matter Beit Hillel acted according to their words and many of Israel practiced like them to offer them after the festival, and this day which is the day after the festival became for them like the festival itself to forbid eulogizing and fasting on it, therefore even now after the destruction of the Holy Temple eulogizing and fasting on that day were not permitted².

Known is the question that one asks³

: Where is the source that Beit Hillel conducted themselves in this like Beit Shammai and offered after the festival and that "many of Israel practiced like them"?

In the Gemara⁴

a Baraita is brought⁵

"An event: and Alkasa died⁶

in Lud and all Israel entered to eulogize him and Rabbi Tarfon did not allow them because it was the Yom Tov of Atzeret."

The Gemara asks: "Yom Tov, is it reasonable?" and answers "Rather say: because it was the day of slaughter."

And since it is not logical⁷

to say that Rabbi Tarfon should rule on his own like Beit Shammai⁸

and "all Israel" should then agree with his ruling,

it is understood from this that "all Israel" had previously conducted themselves on their own in this matter according to the words of Beit Shammai⁹.

Even though in the Mishnah<sup>10</sup>

it speaks explicitly about "The festival of Shavuot that occurs on the eve of Shabbat: Beit Shammai say: There is a day of slaughtering after Shabbat, and Beit Hillel say: There is no day of slaughtering after Shabbat,"

that if Shavuot does not occur on Shabbat one does not need a "day of slaughtering"<sup>11</sup>,

because one can offer sacrifices on the day of the festival —

The Tosafot Rid<sup>12</sup> raises

the question: "It is difficult for me, for if so, Rabbi Tarfon follows Beit Shammai, for if Beit Hillel

They said that it does not have a day of slaughtering that is close to Yom Tov.

And he answers: B"H does not need a day of slaughtering ..

However, the general rule is that not all of Israel can suffice and offer the Festival peace-offerings and the Festival burnt-offering on the first day, and many offer on the second day, and therefore the second day of Atzeret is forbidden for eulogy and fasting because it is a day of slaughtering, etc., for the main offering of them is on the second day<sup>13</sup>.

And based on this, one explains and elucidates the words of the Alter Rebbe in Shulchan Aruch,

that what he says that in practice, Isru Chag

(of Atzeret)

was a day of slaughtering,

is in accordance

(and according to<sup>14</sup>)

the words of the Tosafos HaRid mentioned above.

ב,

It is, however, generally not plausible that with the words "בדבר זה עשו ב״ה כדבריהם" the Alter Rebbe is of the opinion of the Ri"d

("אין כל ישראל יכולין להספיק כו׳"),

The language of the Alter Rebbe does not contain such an explanation: And even from that which the Alter Rebbe says "והרבה מישראל נהגו כמותם להקריבן אחר יו״ט" it is also proven that he does not mean the matter that is stated in Tosafos Ri"d,

because then the Alter Rebbe would have said

(not "נהגו כמותם להקריב! אחר יו״ט",

which implies that they practiced ab initio like Beis Shammai,

but rather)

"והרבה מישראל שלא הספיקו להקריב ביו״ט נהגו להקריבן אחר יו״ט" and the like.

And further and mainly: from that which the Alter Rebbe mentions only "עולת ראי"׳

— "On that day they would offer the appearance-offerings"

(Not like in Tosafos Rid where it also mentions "festival peace-offerings"),

and elaborates on the reason for the matter according to Beis Shammai

"Because they could not offer on Yom Tov itself since they have no need for food preparation<sup>16</sup>

And one does not desecrate Yom Tov for them etc.' —

It is proven,

That that which "In this matter Beis Hillel did like their words and many of Israel practiced like them" is not because of that which "All of Israel cannot suffice and offer"

(Which applies also to festival peace-offerings),

Rather it is connected with the reason of Beis Shammai,

(Which applies only to the appearance-offering<sup>15</sup>)

Which applies only to the appearance-offering.

And it can be said that the reason why the Alter Rebbe does not accept the explanation of the Tzemach Tzedek regarding the prohibition of eulogizing and fasting on Motza'ei Chol HaMo'ed,

is because it is difficult to say that because of those who "cannot...

sufficiently bring [the offerings] on the first day," the second day should have the status of Yom Tovach regarding the prohibition of eulogizing and fasting¹⁷,

and for all Jews¹⁸.

But the reason itself,

that "not all of Israel can sufficiently bring the peace-offerings of the festival and the burnt-offering of appearance on the first day" requires explanation: why should it be assumed that "they cannot sufficiently bring"?

We find that the Paschal offering,

where also in that offering each individual was obligated,

all Jews were able to offer in one day; and furthermore: the Paschal offering could be offered only¹⁹

after midday²⁰

of the day,

while the burnt-offerings of appearance and peace-offerings of the festival could be offered the entire day,

from after the morning daily offering²¹

rather one would enroll upon it in groups<sup>22</sup>

— there is the law<sup>23</sup>

that also the burnt-offerings of appearance and peace-offerings of the festival<sup>24</sup>

one may bring in partnership].

And the difficulty returns to its place: what is the source and reasoning upon that which the Alter Rebbe says<sup>25</sup>

"since in this matter Beit Hillel did<sup>26</sup>

according to their words and many of Israel acted like them to sacrifice them after the festival"<sup>27</sup>

(because of the reason of Beit Shammai "since there is in them no [matter of] preparing food for a soul").

3.

Air in the body of the words of the Alter Rebbe one must understand:

a)

After that which he says "since in this matter Beis Hillel did according to their words"

(from Beis Shammai)

— what does he add "and many of Israel practiced like them"?

Since that not only Beis Shammai but also Beis Hillel brought offerings on the day after the holiday — it is simple that

All Jews conducted themselves thus! Also: What is the term "רבה",

not "כל ישראל"?

b)

From the length of the words of the Alter Rebbe at the beginning of the paragraph "Because it was the day of slaughter at the time when the Holy Temple stood, i.e., that on that day they would sacrifice the burnt-offerings of appearance which they could not sacrifice on the festival itself, because they have no need for food for the soul, and they do not desecrate the festival for them, since it is possible to sacrifice them after the festival, for Shavuot has its make-up days all seven."

— it is implied,

that that which "in this matter Beit Hillel did according to their words

(of Beit Shammai)

and many of Israel followed their practice" is connected with the reason of Beit Shammai which he brings down earlier,

as above.

One must understand what is the reasoning in this,

since according to the words of Beit Hillel it is permitted to offer them on Yom Tov.

4.

And this will be understood by prefacing the explanation of the order of the paragraphs of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch at the end of the aforementioned laws: first comes paragraph 18: "It is forbidden to fast a fast of a dream on the holiday of Shavuot, etc.",

then paragraph 19: "On the night after the holiday of Shavuot it is forbidden to fast according to the essence of the law",

and afterwards paragraph 20: "And the custom in these countries is not to fast and not to say Tachanun from Rosh Chodesh until the 8th of it and including, etc.".

And superficially,

It is understood why the Alter Rebbe placed the laws about the prohibition of fasting etc. at the end of Hilchos Chag HaShavuos — because reason dictates that first²⁸

must come the positive laws and customs that one must do on the festival

of Shavuos,

and afterwards — the matters and laws that are connected with prohibitions and the like.

The question is, however, regarding the order within the three paragraphs themselves²⁹

: According to the order of times, it would have been fitting,

that the Alter Rebbe should, first of all, begin with the last paragraph "And the custom in these countries is not to fast and not to say Tachanun from Rosh Chodesh until the 8th of it etc.,

and afterwards — the laws about the prohibition of fasting

(a dream)

on Shavuos and on the night after Shavuos³⁰

(and the law of not fasting is in the Magen Avraham³¹)

in its place; whereas the prohibition of fasting a dream-fast on Shavuos is not brought down in the Rema,

but only in the Chok Yaakov

(in the name of the Maharil³²)].

5.

The explanation in all this:

That which the Alter Rebbe says that "B"H they did according to their words" of Beis Shammai is yesh

To say,

that the source of this is in Masekhet Beitzah³³

"The incident of Hillel the Elder, who brought his burnt-offering to the Temple courtyard to lean upon it on Yom Tov. The disciples of Shammai the Elder gathered around him and said to him: What is the nature of this animal? He said to them: It is a female, and I brought it for peace-offerings..

And on that day the hand of Beit Shammai prevailed, etc. And there was there a certain elder from the disciples of Shammai the Elder, etc., who knew that the halacha is like Beit Hillel, and he sent, etc. And on that day the hand of Beit Hillel prevailed, and they established the halacha according to them, and there was no person there who disputed anything."

Then the Gemara brings "Again an incident with a student

("After this incident there was an incident with a student etc.".

Rashi)

From the students of Beit Hillel who brought his burnt-offering to the Temple courtyard to lean upon it, they found a student from the students of Beit Shammai who said to him: What is this leaning?

He said to him: What is this silence? They silenced him with a rebuke and he went away."

And seemingly: Since they established the law according to them, like Beit Hillel,

then one brings burnt-offerings<sup>34</sup>

and one leans upon them,

then how does it come that afterwards there was an incident with a student from the students of Beit Hillel who brought his burnt-offering to the Temple courtyard etc.<sup>35</sup>,

which shows,

that this was not an ordinary incident,

but a special case with a student — for thus should have done all the students of Beit Hillel,

and in general — the entire Jewish people

(Because — they established the law like Beit Hillel)?

From this itself it is proven,

that even after they established the halacha like Beis Hillel,

most Jews³⁶,

including the students of Beis Hillel,

conducted themselves not to bring their burnt-offerings on Yom Tov³⁷.

6.

But this itself requires a reason: since they established the halacha like them, why did they not bring their burnt-offerings on Yom Tov according to the words of Beis Hillel,

and especially since the halacha regarding bringing burnt-offerings of appearance on Yom Tov,

is not merely a permission to offer burnt-offerings of appearance on Yom Tov,

but then "the essence of their mitzvah"³⁸.

And therefore 'the Alter Rebbe teaches that the aforementioned story in Gemara Beitzah is in accordance with that which the Gemara relates in Chagigah that Rabbi Tarfon did not allow eulogizing on the day after Shavuos because it is Yom T'vuach.

D.

E.

That which they did not offer the olos re'iyah on Yom Tov itself,

is because thus they conducted themselves

in relation to Atzeres — Chag HaShavuos — when there was Yom T'vuach after Shavuos

The explanation of this:

According to the essential law, indeed, with the help of Heaven, that the olat re'iyah, its time and essential mitzvah is on the day of Yom Tov itself,

as we learn this from³⁹

from the verse⁴⁰

And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord — "all for the Lord",

and because of the reason "so that your table should not be full and your Master's table empty"⁴¹.

But on Shavuot,

regarding which "everyone agrees on Shavuot that we also require 'for yourselves' — 'that he rejoice in it with eating and drinking'"⁴²,

they conducted themselves, with the help of Heaven, according to the words of Beit Shammai and did not then offer the olat re'iyah.

And the reason: although according to the reasoning "that your table should not be full and your teacher's table empty" there is a "slight need"⁴³

the offering of burnt-offerings of appearance on Yom Tov is not [done],

and consequently this is included in "joy of Yom Tov"⁴⁴

— but according to the greatness of the matter of "the day on which the Torah was given" on Shavuot,

it demands "that one rejoice on it with eating and drinking to show that this day is pleasant and accepted to Israel, on which the Torah was given"⁴⁵,

they endeavored, with the help of Heaven, that the main offerings on this day should be only those in which is seen not only "slight need",

but "complete need",

a joy "like eating and drinking".

7.

Based on the above, it is understood what the Alter Rebbe a)

brings

(at length)

at the beginning of the paragraph the reason of Beit Shammai "that they could not offer on Yom Tov itself because there is in them no need of food for the soul, etc." although this is entirely not consistent with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

b)

mentions only burnt-offerings of appearance,

not as in Tosafot Rid

(and similarly in Levush)

where also "peace-offerings of the festival" are mentioned.

c)

adds "many of Israel have followed their practice to offer them after Yom Tov" —

With this the Alter Rebbe emphasizes,

that although according to the opinion of Beit Hillel it is "permitted to sacrifice them

(even)

on Yom Tov",

nevertheless "they did as their words" and

(not because of that which they did not manage to sacrifice the burnt-offering of appearance

(and the peace-offerings of the festival)

on Yom Tov itself,

or from a stringency that they imposed upon themselves according to the opinion of Beit Shammai

(as one finds elsewhere⁴⁶)

— rather)

from the reason of Beit Shammai "that there is in them no need of food for the soul"; therefore — "many of Israel practiced like them to sacrifice them after Yom Tov".

And the Alter Rebbe emphasizes this even more with that which he arranges the sections regarding the prohibition of fasting not according to their chronological order

(which is from Rosh Chodesh until the eighth of it,

after that the prohibition of fasting on a dream on Shavuot and afterwards the prohibition of fasting on the night after Chol HaMoed),

rather he states the custom not to fast from Rosh Chodesh until the eighth of it after the prohibition of fasting on Chol HaMoed and the night after Chol HaMoed

— in order to emphasize that this that the prohibition of fasting on the night after Chol HaMoed comes after the paragraph about the prohibition of fasting a dream on Shavuot,

is not

(only)

because of the order

of the times,

but in continuation of the content of the previous paragraph:

With this that,

"It is forbidden to fast a fast for a dream on the holiday of Shavuot because it is the day on which the Torah was given, and one must eat and rejoice on it to show that the day on which the Torah was given is pleasant and accepted by Israel; therefore it is not like other festivals and Sabbaths on which it is permitted to fast a fast for a dream" — it is explained that "on the night after the holiday of Shavuot it is forbidden to fast according to the essence of the law because it was a day of slaughtering when the Holy Temple existed, meaning that on that day they would offer the burnt-offerings of appearance, etc.",

as the Alter Rebbe explains immediately the reason of Beit Shammai

(but not bringing immediately that Beit Shammai say this),

because the definition is also according to Beit Hillel

(although not in the category of a prohibition),

and as explained above<sup>47</sup>.

since "in this matter Beit Hillel acted according to their words" then apparently "all of Israel" conducted themselves thus — because

(here it is not relevant that the Jews conducted themselves thus in practice

(as according to Tosafot Rid),

but the reason — and it is possible that among others of them this was because among them there was lacking alacrity and the like,

but)

the proof is from that which "many"

(at least)

"followed their practice to offer them after the holiday" —

Because of the reason in the matter,

which relates to "the day on which the Torah was given",

as above<sup>48</sup>].

8.

And it may be said,

that the Alter Rebbe derives this also from the baraita of R. Tarfon itself: "R. Tarfon did not allow them

(to eulogize him)

because it was the festival of Shavuot, and the Gemara asks "Is it a festival? Does one come on a festival? Rather, say: because it was the day of slaughter."

And at first glance, how does it come that the Gemara

(baraita)

should initially phrase the language to say "festival of Shavuot" instead of "day of slaughter"?

But from this it is understood that this is the content of the first version: that it is indeed not the day of Shavuot itself,

but after Shavuot,

but on the other hand it has in it an essence of "festival of Shavuot",

being the "day of slaughter" of the offerings of "the festival of Shavuot".

According to the explanation of Tosafos R"i D however,

is the "day of slaughter" of Atzeres not the main

(sacrifices of)

Yom Tov of Atzeres,

but only a continuation and only a part,

and only those which "cannot..

be sufficient" in practice,

and for this reason also it is not smooth what on this day applies the name

(definition)

of "day of slaughter"

(and is therefore forbidden in eulogy and fasting

(until that it is so also in this time after the destruction when one does not offer sacrifices)),

because the day itself is not a day of slaughter —

in the language of the Yerushalmi⁴⁹

"b'rei d'mo'ada" — "ben hamo'ed"⁵⁰,

but a product and result of a

ability to offer all the sacrifices on the festival itself⁵¹].

Not so according to the interpretation of the old Rebbe — since Atzeret is "the day on which the Torah was given and one must eat and rejoice on it etc.",

And therefore some of the offerings of Atzeret were sacrificed in one day,

which

(from the old Rebbe: "They fulfilled the words of the Sages, and many of Israel followed their practice...)

this day, which is the day after the festival, became for them like the festival itself",

the actual obligation of the sa-

Daughters⁵²

is on "the day of slaughter"⁵³

and therefore it is forbidden in eulogy and fasting.

And according to this it is understood,

that "thus, even now that the Temple is destroyed, eulogy and fasting on that day have not been permitted",

since that day "became etc. like the festival itself",

as above.

9.

According to all the above it comes out,

that the difference between the old Rebbe and the Tosafos Yom Tov is in two details: a)

Yom Tovach is connected with the Yom Tov of Atzeres itself as "the day on which the Torah was given",

b)

It is not from necessity and inability

(as according to the Tosafos Yom Tov — because "all of Israel cannot suffice and bring sacrifices")

Rather it was established from the doing and conduct of Israel — "they did as their words and many of Israel conducted themselves like them" and therefore "this day became for them etc. like Yom Tov itself".

And it can be said,

that the two details are connected with each other from the aspect of their inner content:

In Torah there is the concept of the giving of the Torah — as this is from the aspect of the Giver of the Torah — the Holy One, blessed be He,

and the receiving of the Torah — as this is from the aspect of the receiver,

the children of Israel.

And this the Alter Rebbe says in his Shulchan,

that that which "all agree on Shavuot that we also require 'for you'" — this is "to show that it is pleasant and accepted to Israel the day on which the Torah was given",

i.e.

that is

to bring out the definition of the Torah as it is from the aspect of the receiver,

from the aspect of Jews⁵⁴.

and therefore it comes out thus regarding the day that one offers the sacrifices of the festival of Shavuos,

day of slaughter,

that the name "day of slaughter" applies to this

day — is not from the aspect of necessity,

that they did not manage to offer the sacrifices on the day of the festival of Shavuos and consequently it becomes a "substitute for the festival",

a result of the festival — but from the aspect of the conduct of Israel,

as above,

that from the aspect of their conduct in the joy and preciousness of the Torah "to show that it is pleasant and accepted to Israel",

they initiated and added

(also)

in time⁵⁵,

that the conclusion of the festival is "they made this day ..

like the festival itself"⁵⁶.

(From sichos of the second day of Chol HaMoed Sukkos 5716,

5723 and 5736)