English translation — שבת חזון

1.

It is known¹

that R. Hillel Paritcher²

brings "in the name of the Rav from Barditchov, may his soul be in Eden," that "Shabbos Chazon" is from "the language of vision,"

that is, that on this Shabbos one shows "to each and every one³

the future Holy Temple from afar."

It is, however, not removed from its simple meaning.

The reason that this Shabbos is called "Shabbos Chazon" is — after the haftarah: since this is the Shabbos which is adjacent and connected to Tishah B'Av,

one therefore recites the haftarah "Chazon Yeshayahu"⁴

— the last of the three [haftarot] of affliction⁵.

And it is understood,

that the closer this Shabbos is to Tishah B'Av,

the harsher is the matter of affliction,

until that when this Shabbos is the eve of Tishah B'Av or Tishah B'Av itself,

it is, although on Shabbos there may not be mourning,

there are, however, present in it

(according to several opinions)

the matters of Tishah B'Av in private matters⁶.

From this it is understood also conversely: that which is shown on Shabbos Chazon the future Beis HaMikdash,

because of its proximity and connection to Tishah B'Av,

is with greater emphasis and strength in a year when Tishah B'Av occurs on Shabbos

(as in this year),

more than it is in other years,

when Shabbos Chazon occurs not on Tishah B'Av itself.

B.

That which is shown on Shabbos Chazon the future Beis HaMikdash — although not every one sees it openly

(and the Berditchever indeed does not say that it is shown only to tzaddikim,

and certainly not that only to great tzaddikim,

rather "they show to each one the future Beis HaMikdash")

is the explanation thereof can be said simply in the manner that the Gemara

says regarding the words of Daniel

"And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, and the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled into hiding" — "But since they did not see, why were they terrified?

Although they did not see, their mazal saw."

D.

E.

It is not the explanation that the "men...

with me" became terrified from that which Daniel related to them the "vision",

rather the reason was that which "their mazal saw"

and the vision of the mazal in a manner that from it "a great trembling fell upon them" as they are,

conduct themselves down here.

And in this manner it is understood in our matter,

that the seeing of the future Temple on Shabbat Chazon,

is not

(only)

a matter that pertains to tzaddikim and they tell it,

or even more they reveal it to the rest of Bnei Yisrael,

rather

(also),

in the language of Chazal mentioned above,

the language of Torah mentioned above,

"they show

(the Hebrew of Chazon)

to each one" — one shows it to each individual,

they show to their mazal — from his soul,

and this affects the person,

until also upon his body and animal soul.

3.

What is the content and purpose of showing the future Temple?

The Berditchever explains¹

with a parable of a father who prepared a precious garment for his child and the child tore the garment into many shreds.

The father made him a second garment,

but the child also tore the second garment¹³.

The father prepared for the child a third garment,

but he did not give it to him to wear — only "for known distant intervals"¹⁴

he shows him the garment,

saying thereby that when he will conduct himself in the straight path,

he will give it to him to wear.

And through this the father accustoms him to go in the straight path,

"until it becomes for the child like a nature — and then the father gives the garment to his child,

that he should put it on and wear it.

And it is understood in the aforementioned Torah,

so this is a parable for the two Holy Temples — which were destroyed,

and for the third Temple — the future Holy Temple.

It is known¹⁵

that all the parables of the Torah,

the Torah of truth,

are precise in all the details.

And consequently,

since the parable said "the Rabbi of Berditchev",

it is understood that the parable exactly corresponds to the moral.

One must accordingly understand: the Holy Temples, their essence was a permanent dwelling

(house)

not in a temporary manner

(like the Tabernacle was, about which it is stated¹⁶

"And I will walk about in tent and in Tabernacle"¹⁷)

— why does he say about it the parable of a garment,

whose essence is "like a garment you will wear them out"^8,

a thing to change?

And "your garment did not wear out"¹⁹

was a miracle and only for a limited time?

And moreover it is puzzling: one could bring out the exact same concept through a precise parable for the Holy Temple — of a "house".

Furthermore: the main intention of the parable,

is indeed

(seemingly)

that “giving” the Beis HaMikdash HaShem and HaVaYa”H,

one should not destroy it,

it should be

(if they merited)

existing forever in eternal existence

— how does the parable of a “garment” which is a temporary thing fit on this,

the opposite of an eternal matter.

And it must be said,

that although in a house there is an advantage over a garment,

in that it is a fixed and permanent thing,

there is however also an advantage in a garment,

which is not in a house; and in our case — in relation to the effect on the son that he should go on the straight path,

it is relevant mainly the matter that the Beis HaMikdash

(including also — the future Beis HaMikdash)

is analogous to a garment,

and not so that it is a “house”.

4.

And it can be said the explanation in this:

One of the main differences between a garment and a house is,

that a garment is fitted according to the measure of the person wearing it: in a garment,

must be its length and width,

in accordance with the measure of his length and width of the person,

not shorter and not longer.

And as the law²³

is regarding the priestly garments

(which are "for glory²⁴

and for beauty"²⁵),

that they must be according to the measure of the priest;

But a house, its measure — its length and its width — is much larger than the measure of a person,

as we find in halacha²⁶

that a house is obligated in a mezuzah only when it has at least the measure of four cubits by four cubits

— much more than the measure of a person.

The measure of a person is as we find regarding the measure of a mikveh²⁷

: a cubit by a cubit by a height of three cubits, like the measure of a person.

From this it is understood that the relationship of a garment to the person clothed in it is much more particular,

a closer one than the relationship of a house to the one who dwells in it²⁸.

And therefore there is also a difference between a garment and a house in how much one can have from them an estimation about the person within them: when one looks at a garment one can know from it specific details of the one clothed in it,

its length and its width etc.,

because the garment is according to the particular measure of the person²⁹

this specifically as above; but not so: through seeing a house one can only have a general estimation about the inhabitant of the house — whether it is a house of a rich person or of a poor person etc.; one cannot, however, from the house know and recognize particular matters of the dweller in the house.

5.

Based on this the reason is understood why the parable is specifically from a garment and not from a house:

The holiness of the Beis HaMikdash consists not only of one general holiness — that it is a "House for Hashem"<sup>30</sup>,

but there are different levels in the "holinesses": Kodesh HaKodashim,

Heichal,

Azarah etc.<sup>31</sup>

— there is a particular holiness in every part and specific place of the Beis HaMikdash<sup>32</sup>.

— The building of the Beis HaMikdash was "everything in writing from the hand of Hashem upon me He gave insight"<sup>33</sup>

— and behold, that the parts of the House,

the place and the measure of length and width etc. of each part of the House,

were precise and exact<sup>34</sup>

— in accordance with the differences in the holiness between each part and specific place thereof.

And this is also what on the verse³⁵

"From Your dwelling You have acted, O Lord" Chazal say³⁶

(and they are precise in their language)

"the Beis HaMikdash below is aligned opposite the Beis HaMikdash above",

that the "Beis HaMikdash" as it is here "below" with all the differences in place and measurements

(physical)

of every particular part that it contains within itself,

is aligned — precisely — "opposite the Beis HaMikdash above",

that all this is opposite,

corresponding to the content and level of holiness in every particular part³⁷

of the spiritual Beis HaMikdash

("Beis HaMikdash above")³⁸.

And the differences of levels in place — are also connected with differences of levels among Bnei Yisrael: Ezras Nashim,

men,

a place where only a kohen enters etc.

And in this consists the superior quality of "levush"

(regarding "bayit"),

because that all these parts and details of the Mikdash were in precise correspondence with the distinctions of levels of holiness in them

(as above),

is analogous to a garment,

which in all its details is fitted to the one clothed in it³⁹.

6.

Although that the matter

(the quality of the "levush" in the Beis HaMikdash)

was, as understood, as above in the First Temple and in the Second Temple

(— also in the Mishkan⁴⁰),

perhaps there is a novelty — that nevertheless,

the main function and novelty in the parable of "levush" is regarding the Beis HaMikdash of the future,

the Third Beis HaMikdash.

The explanation in this: that the First Temple and Second Temple were in the manner of a "garment" — that every part and detail was in accordance with the level of holiness in it and in the Children of Israel as mentioned above — is not explicit in the Scriptures etc.,

revealed and evident in them in particular; openly it was evident that it is a "House for God" divided into general places etc.⁴¹.

But in the Third Holy Temple it will become apparent,

that also before fleshly eyes will be evident and revealed the special quality that it is in the manner of a "garment",

that every detail of the attributes and parts of the Temple⁴²,

is in accordance with the particular holiness in it⁴³.

And the reason for this: It stands in the Zohar*⁴³

that the first and second Holy Temples were "a building of a man"⁴⁴,

but not so the future Holy Temple,

the third Holy Temple,

is "a building of the Holy One, blessed be He"⁴⁴.

And therefore,

in the first and second Holy Temples,

even though in them are all

the parts and details of the attributes in precise correspondence — the attribute of Havayah — with the particular sanctities,

however, since their building and its details are related to "a man"

(although it is the attribute of Havayah),

therefore one did not see in revelation in the particular parts of the Holy Temple below how they correspond with the particular parts of the holiness of "the building of the Holy One, blessed be He" as above;

But not so regarding the future Holy Temple,

since the building itself is "the structure of the Holy One, blessed be He",

therefore also in the details of the lower Temple will be reflected in revelation the details

(the holiness of)

the upper Holy Temple — as every place,

particular attribute etc. of the physical Temple itself is in accordance with "and according to the measure of" the holiness

(above)

that is in it.

7.

It is known that the indwelling of the Divine Presence in the world comes through the Holy Temple, and as our sages, of blessed memory, said⁴⁵

that from this Holy Temple "light went out to the world",

and analogous to the existence of the soul in the brain and head or in the limbs and parts of the body⁴⁶

- that the special quality mentioned above of .

"clothe" itself express openly not only in the Beis HaMikdash

(the third)

itself,

but through the Beis HaMikdash will the atmosphere come down and stand openly in the entire creation.

And the explanation of this and with an introduction:

Regarding the "Ten Utterances

(with which)

the world was created"<sup>47</sup>,

it is known what the Alter Rebbe explains at length in Shaar HaYichud VeHaEmunah<sup>48</sup>

(on the verse<sup>49</sup>

"LeOlam Hashem Devarcha"')

that the letters of the specific utterance from the Ten Utterances,

with which was created the specific created being

(which is mentioned in the Ten Utterances),

they stand

(the letters of "utterance")

always in the specific created being "to give it life and sustain it",

(that are in all the worlds),

or such that are not mentioned

(explicitly)

in the "Ten Utterances",

that each of them is created from the "letters that are in the Ten Utterances in the Torah",

only by them it is in a manner that the vitality from the Ten Utterances comes to them through "exchanges and permutations of the letters",

in order to create and enliven also such particular creations,

which cannot receive from the letters of the Ten Utterances themselves⁵⁰].

That is,

that all particular distinctions of creations in their essence,

nature and form — come from this, that there are distinctions in the particular letters of the Ten Utterances

(and their exchanges and permutations),

which bring into being and enliven each creation in its particular form⁵¹.

8.

And this will be the novelty in the future,

that then one will see this in revelation — "And the glory of the L-rd shall be revealed, and all flesh together shall see that the mouth of the L-rd has spoken"⁵²

Additionally, that in the future will be revealed "the glory of the L-rd",

that it will be evident how every creature was created from the Supreme One Who is "the inventor of every existent and all existences; heaven and earth and what is between them were not found except from the truth of His existence"⁵³,

which this is a general matter that is equally in all creatures, created and made

the very "existence" of every creature is only through that which the Supreme One is its "inventor"],

Only "and all flesh will see",

one will also see how "the mouth of G-d spoke" — how every created being,

in its particular nature and essence,

is the true reality of its being — the "word of G-d," the particular utterance which is clothed within it⁵⁴.

And along these lines, as we find that great tzaddikim "see" this also now,

as it is brought⁵⁵

that the Maggid recognized from a vessel that the craftsman who made the vessel was blind in one eye,

he saw in the vessel the particular qualities of the craftsman who made it physically

(and — from the actual to the potential)

and all the more so,

and this comes from the fact that he saw in every created being the power of the agent in the object⁵⁶,

the word of G-d which is the bringer-into-being of the physical object⁵⁷.

And in the future to come it will be revealed before the eyes of all "and all flesh will see together that the mouth of the Lord has spoken."

And it can be said that the revelation that will be in "and all flesh will see" regarding the "mouth of the Lord has spoken" that is in the world,

comes from that which in the Holy Temple will be revealed the aspect of the "garment" within it

(regarding the level of "and I will dwell",

the indwelling of the Divine Presence that is in the Holy Temple),

as every part of the physical Holy Temple is connected,

and according to the measure of — the holiness that is clothed in it.

9.

And it can be said that this is the reasoning in what the Berditchever emphasizes in the parable that the father shows his child the "garment" — that also the

novelty that will be in the Third Beis HaMikdash,

in the manner of a garment as above,

is shown now "to each one" on Shabbos Chazon,

and in the manner of "showing",

as above.

What is so relevant to the service of man that one should on Shabbos Chazon see how the third Beis HaMikdash is like a garment

(and not merely like a "house")?

(of house)

there is an advantage and superiority in the third Beis HaMikdash,

as mentioned above from the Zohar,

that the reason that the third Beis HaMikdash is fixed and stands forever,

is because it is "the building of the Holy One, blessed be He",

not like the first two Temples which were⁵⁸

"the building of a human being which has no permanence at all"],

This is understood from the content of the parable,

that the reason that the father shows his child the garment "at known distant intervals",

is to accustom him "to the child on the straight path until it becomes known in him that it has become for him like a nature".

At the time⁵⁹

his service of God is out of self-nullification and acceptance of the yoke,

the walking on the straight path does not come to him "like a nature",

but on the contrary, contrary to his nature; by nature he is like a slave for whom "freedom from responsibility is pleasing"⁶⁰,

rather he coerces himself and fulfills the will of God contrary to his nature and his will.

Furthermore: even when he is serving G‑d with his attributes,

he effects in himself a love for G‑d and with that love he serves the Almighty,

nevertheless,

if however this comes from the natural inclination of his attributes — then even then the walking on the straight path has not become "like nature"; because his service of G‑d is limited to the

(one)

natural inclination of his animal soul.

For example: if by his nature he is inclined to the line of kindness and love,

he effects through contemplation that instead of the love and desire for worldly matters he should stand with a love for the Almighty; when it comes however ⁶¹

to a service that requires an opposite movement from his natural inclination — a movement of fear of G‑d — there is lacking in his service.

It turns out,

that not serving God has become for him “like nature” — rather, he has remained in the naturalness of his existence,

a created being

("the building of a man")

which is a separate existence, as it were, from divinity.

But when he effects in himself that he gives himself over entirely to serving God — then serving God becomes his entire essence: his love of God,

for example,

is

(not that he uses his natural inclination and love in holiness,

but it is)

in its entire essence a holy attribute,

that is the will of God.

And since he has become an existence of holiness

(in the manner of "a building of the Holy One, blessed be He")

so that "service of G-d" is his essence — all his attributes become transformed to holiness,

in a manner that every particular power and attribute within him is entirely connected with the Supreme; by him there is no difference⁶¹

so that his natural inclination is,

and he performs his service perfectly both when the service of love of G-d is required and when there is needed the

(opposite)

movement of fear of G-d

then automatically the walking in the straight path becomes "like nature" and "he is not afraid that he will return to his evil way since it has become like natural"⁶².

Yud.

And therefore the Bardichever emphasizes that one shows the Beis HaMikdash as it is in the manner of a "levush" which is like the measure of the one clothed in it,

that in it one sees the connection to the Above not only in the manner of "house"

(as above),

a general connection,

but as it is, as it were, a garment for the Above; that all the details therein are in the category of "building of the Holy One, blessed be He",

Because this is the empowerment⁶³

also the service that must be brought forth by the Jew,

by every Jew,

that his connection with the Above should be — in addition to the general connection,

that one gives oneself over in general to serve the Above — a particular connection in the manner of "levush",

that should permeate all his particular powers: his intellect is — to understand all his existence as G-dliness,

"to know the knowledge of the Creator

or"⁶⁴

; his attribute of love is all its content and essence — love of Hashem

(and so too regarding all the other attributes).

And consequently there is absolutely no other feeling in him that is, G-d forbid, not for Hashem.

Then the walking in the straight path will become natural⁶⁵.

And this hastens and speeds the revelation of the third Beis HaMikdash which "is built and perfected, it will be revealed and come from heaven"⁶⁶,

so that from this "vision" one comes to "and our eyes shall see"⁶⁷,

see the Beis HaMikdash with physical eyes below ten handbreadths,

speedily in our days,

and in our actual time.

(From the talks of Shabbat Chazon 5740-?

5744)