English translation — ג' תמוז

1.

3rd of Tammuz — the day when the Rebbe, my master, father-in-law and teacher, was freed from prison — falls out

(in several years)

close to Shabbat Parshat Chukat

(sometimes in the week of Parshat Chukat,

and sometimes¹

in the days which are "blessed" from Shabbat Parshat Chukat).

And according to the well-known word of the Shelah HaKadosh²,

that all the festivals of the year — including also Rabbinic festivals — are hinted at in the Torah portions which are read on the Shabbatot when they occur,

it is understood,

that there is a hint in Parshat Chukat regarding the redemption of the 3rd of Tammuz.

B.

In the redemption of the Rebbe there were two

(general)

stages: On 3 Tammuz he was freed from prison,

but they then exiled him for three years; only afterwards,

on 12-13 Tammuz he was completely freed,

also from the exile,

and he was able to return to his home.

It follows,

that on 3 Tammuz was the beginning of the redemption,

and 12-13 Tammuz was the completion of the redemption.

And from this reason there is an elevation in 3 Tammuz relative to 12-13 Tammuz:

Although the holiday of the redemption was established specifically on 12-13 Tammuz,

this is because the concept of a "holiday"

(and revealed joy)

one establishes when the redemption is in completeness,

because one cannot make the blessing "until he leaves the danger completely..

until he returns to his health completely"<sup>4</sup>],

But in the essence of the matter of the redemption, there is an elevation in the beginning of the redemption relative to the completion of the redemption.

Because

(In addition to this, that in the beginning there is the advantage that one breaks through the difficulty of "all beginnings are hard"<sup>5</sup>,

since)

At the beginning of the redemption, the change takes place

(even — to its opposite —)

of the state of exile

(exile)

to redemption,

which⁶

the change of the situation in simplicity that was brought about through the redemption of 3 Tammuz — the liberation from the prison

(and in particular in the circumstances of that country in those days⁷)

and going over

(even)

into a situation of exile in a distant city — was

(in several details)

greater than the change and difference from being in exile and going out free to his home

(and in particular that also being afterwards at his home

he was under a "supervision" of that government)],

It is indeed known,

that in the beginning of every matter the entire thing is included.

In the manner that we find in the matter of Roshei Teivos — a matter in Torah and also in the Torah⁸

— that the first letter of a word alludes to the entire word⁹,

and so forth¹⁰

; and likewise in our matter: that the entire redemption of the Rebbe was hinted and "included" in the beginning of the redemption of 3 Tammuz.

3.

The general content of the imprisonment and redemption of the Rebbe is indeed connected with his work of spreading Torah and strengthening Judaism and disseminating them in that country,

which the work in those days demanded actual self-sacrifice.

And furthermore: as discussed several times,

was this not merely a mesiras nefesh,

but a mesiras nefesh without limitations and calculations.

If one would have entered into a calculation whether there are prospects according to nature to succeed in the work

(and the like),

there would have been no place to proceed with the work,

and certainly not to sacrifice oneself for it

(and all the more so and a fortiori<sup>12</sup>

— not to risk the lives of his students and emissaries for the sake of the work).

And the manner of mesiras nefesh without any calculations was seen openly by the Rebbe in his above-mentioned conduct in general,

and in particular in connection with his redemption on the 3rd of Tammuz,

until that the very "tragedy" of the 3rd of Tammuz

(in relation to the redemption)

reminds of his mesiras nefesh,

as follows.

— And it is to say,

that that which the redemption of 3 Tammuz was connected with the level of self-sacrifice — without any limitations of "calculation" — is because in the beginning of the redemption the general content of the imprisonment and redemption had to be expressed.

4.

The Rebbe,

the master of the redemption and the joy,

related¹³,

that on Thursday Rosh Chodesh Tammuz before noon they told him the news that they are letting him out of the prison and they are exiling him for three years of exile in the city of Kostroma.

Thereby they let him know,

that in the afternoon they would free him from captivity,

they allowed him to spend six hours with his household and told him that at night he would have to leave the city and travel to Kostroma.

Since this was Thursday,

the Rebbe asked: When will he arrive in Kostroma?

They answered him that he would arrive there on Shabbos.

The Rebbe said,

that on Shabbos he would under no circumstances travel.

And only after a special effort in the circles of the government did they effect that the Rebbe could travel on Sunday,

3 Tammuz

(and until then he remained in prison).

One of those who actually carried out the arrest of the Rebbe said to the Rebbe,

that if he would not agree to travel Thursday night and arrive on Shabbos in Kostroma,

he would not release him from prison.

The Rebbe answered him,

that he is ready to remain in prison for as long as it may be,

but on Shabbos he will under no circumstances travel!

5.

Such a conduct,

to stand with such strength not to travel on Shabbos,

requires explanation:

Through his refusing to fulfill the command to travel immediately to Kostroma

(when they were already prepared to free him from prison)

and remain in prison — the Rebbe placed himself directly into a situation of certain danger:

Initially, there was indeed upon him a decree of the opposite of life, may G-d forbid,

Only through effort was the decree annulled and it was changed to the lighter punishment of

(ten years,

and afterwards)

three years in exile; and also afterwards,

those who initially issued the aforementioned first decree did not change their opinion,

they were forced

(by the higher government circles)

that while remaining in their position and in their power they should nevertheless annul the detail

(verdict)

and free the Rebbe from prison — it is therefore understood,

that in this manner his remaining in their custody in prison was a real danger to life; and especially that this very thing,

that the Rebbe refused to travel on Shabbat,

aroused in them an additional and great anger: a rebellion against their command,

publicized in their prison the observance of Shabbat and in the greatest publicity

(the wardens and the prisoners),

not being able to carry out their scheme to cause the Rebbe to travel on Shabbat¹⁴.

On the other hand,

since the departure from the prison was supposed to be on Thursday during the day,

the matter of desecration of Shabbat was indeed

(a)

not at that time at all,

and

(b)

only in the category of a doubt — and several doubts.

For after the liberation on the fifth day there was still a greater possibility of effort and in the conduct of the Rebbe — that he should not need to travel out immediately at night; and even if they could not prove it to him in the short time,

there remained a full day

(of travel)

until Shabbat,

during which time there was the possibility of great effort that he should stop in the middle of the road until after Shabbat.

and only in a rabbinic prohibition — the prohibition of techumim<sup>15</sup>

(Being in a

(moving)

train is not a melachah)].

Is it nevertheless seemingly most perplexing: Why did the Rebbe stand with force against the traveling and immediately put himself into a situation of danger — seemingly he should have first of all immediately gone out from

(the danger —)

the prison,

and then seek advice how he should not need to travel on Shabbos?

6.

Such a conduct of self-sacrifice was seen by the Rebbe in the entire approach to the work of spreading Torah and strengthening Judaism in that country.

As discussed several times¹⁶

the Rebbe's self-sacrifice encompassed

(not only matters regarding which one is obligated to sacrifice oneself,

but)

also matters which are in the category of "the permission is in his hand".

Moreover: as discussed once at length¹⁶,

his self-sacrifice was also regarding such matters that several great ones and sages of Israel held that one need not sacrifice oneself for them.

So when it speaks about the general service of the Rebbe in that land,

one can still understand why his conduct was in such a manner.

Because seeing that the situation of Jews in that land is such,

that the very existence of Jews and Judaism stood in great danger — that the candle of Israel should not be extinguished, G‑d forbid,

and knowing his mission as a prince of Israel who must care for the existence of the people of Israel,

the Rebbe in his self-sacrifice for Jews did not reckon with any calculations and any limitations.

<span>In our case however,</span>

since here the discussion is not about a matter that touches at least the "good" of the many and the public,

but about a question

(apparently)

regarding his conduct in a private manner — whether he should travel then to Kostroma or not — why did the Rebbe also in this case involve himself in such self-sacrifice?

And on the contrary: through this conduct he endangers his entire work in spreading Torah and strengthening Judaism!

7.

And one can explain the reasoning in this:

The point of this matter — here it was not dealt with whether one should or should not be moser nefesh for the sake of Shabbos,

but here stood the question of Kiddush Hashem or Chillul Hashem:

The intention of those who arrested the Rebbe was in order to destroy the work of the Rebbe in strengthening Judaism.

If it were to be imagined that the Rebbe would not immediately oppose the order, whether before or right after his release,

as they wished

(that the Rebbe should travel on Shabbos)

— then this would be for them a victory: the Rebbe had "agreed" to travel on Shabbos.

All these signatories of the approbation — would they not have known all these considerations mentioned above

(that one strives in secret and one is certain to effect that the Rebbe should not need to travel on Shabbos etc.)

that when it is discussed regarding sanctification of G-d's name and desecration of G-d's name,

it is not relevant whether the matter about which it is discussed is connected with a most severe prohibition or a most lenient prohibition — one reckons only with whether the people around are liable to interpret all that as an opposite matter&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;].

ח.

And this is also the connection of 3 Tammuz to Parshat Chukat:

In Parshat Chukat¹⁹

is related about the sin of "Mei Merivah" because of which Moshe and Aharon were punished that "you shall not bring this congregation to the Land, etc."²⁰.

Is seemingly not understood&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

: With what was the sin so harsh,

that because of it Moshe should not enter Eretz Yisrael?

— And especially that the Torah tells about matters by Moshe for which Moshe was punished — and nevertheless he was not punished for them with such a harsh punishment.

And specifically the sin — the change to strike the rock instead of speaking to it — brought the severe decree that he should not enter Eretz Yisrael?

Y

But the reason for this is hinted in the verse&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

"Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me before the eyes of Bnei Yisrael",

and as Rashi explains it,

that therefore the sin is more severe than the claim of Moshe Rabbeinu to the Almighty "Shall sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them?"&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

— Because there "since it was in private, the text spared him,

and here, since it was in the presence of all Yisrael, the text did not spare him because of the sanctification of the Name".

— d.

e.

So when one speaks about a matter of sanctification of G-d's name or its opposite,

it concerns only how this is interpreted by others.

t.

A deeper matter is in this:

The manner of conduct mentioned above of the Rebbe — that he opposed the order of those who arrested him — was not only when it touched

(openly)

a matter of Judaism,

but as the Rebbe told&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

that he made for himself a firm decision,

that he should not at all be influenced by them.

Not only should he not take them into account in matters that pertain

(openly)

to fear of Heaven.

And because of this conduct they punished the Rebbe with bodily suffering, may it not be said,

beat him and so forth.

— In such a conduct, the aforementioned considerations of kiddush Hashem or that it will affect the work of spreading Torah etc. are not relevant — so what is the reason for this manner of conduct of the Rebbe?

— Also the explanation in the conduct is hinted in the portion of Chukas,

immediately in the name of the portion: "Chukas":

Yud.

The Alter Rebbe explains²⁴

that "Chukah" is from the term chakikah

(engraving).

The advantage of engraving over writing:

In writing, the letters are an added thing to the parchment,

on which they are written.

Through the writing, indeed the letters become united with the parchment,

but this is in the manner of two things that become united.

And therefore,

there can be in this a change up to nullification — one can separate

(erase)

the letters from the parchment.

But by engraving,

the letters are not a separate existence from the thing in which they are engraved,

but they are, as it were,

they are a part of the existence of the stone

(good)

in which they are engraved.

And therefore it is impossible to separate the letters from the stone — touching the letters — is touching the stone

(good).

The same thing is in spirituality: when divine service is merely like an added thing to the reality of man,

it is possible that in this there should be changes.

It can be a situation that one should not fulfill a matter of divine service

(for whatever reason it may be,

including also — that one is an ones [forced]),

and his reality should thereby not become "touched".

But when divine service becomes engraved in his reality — divine service becomes a part of himself — then it is not possible to separate him from divine service.

Taking from him a matter of divine service means taking

(destroying)

his reality

(like one who wants to destroy the form of the letters of a good stone,

must be the breaking of the good stone²⁵).

And therefore, for a Jew for whom service of G-d is engraved in his soul,

he sacrifices himself for every single detail of Judaism,

without calculations²⁶,

because it is

impossible to separate between him and whatever matter it may be of service of G-d.

11.

Thus was the conduct of the Rebbe:

Since matters of Torah and mitzvos were by him in a manner of engraving²⁷,

therefore his self-sacrifice was not connected with any calculations²⁷

(whether in this case the halacha is that one must be self-sacrificing,

or whether it is worthwhile for him,

etc.),

By him this was not a matter of mesiras nefesh because of another thing

(except Him),

by which it is relevant a calculation whether one should be moser nefesh — rather this came as if in a manner of

Consequently: since avodas Hashem was a part of his very existence,

until that it is impossible to separate between them,

is in a manner of consequence by him were all matters of avodas Hashem up to mesiras nefesh.

And for this reason his self-sacrifice was not only on matters that openly touched his service,

but he also sacrificed himself not to become "submissive"

(to those who arrested him)

in any manner whatsoever:

His not reckoning with them was not only a matter of calculation etc.,

but he essentially could not become submissive in any manner whatsoever — to those who hinder the work of spreading Torah etc.,

since the service is for him in a manner of "statute",

engraved from within and without.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Chukas 5741,

5743)