English translation — תשא ב

Talk b<pg>180</pg>

A.

In the Zohar on our parshah<sup>1</sup>

it is told about R' Yosi and R' Chiya who were walking on the road and spoke about matters of Torah,

and finally<sup>2</sup>

R' Chiya said a discourse on the verse<sup>3</sup>

"And it shall be in the end of days, the mountain of the House of G-d shall be established at the top of the mountains..

and all nations shall flow to it",

and afterwards<sup>4</sup>

R' Yosi said "Fortunate is this path that we merited this matter,

He said to him

(R' Yosi)

From whom did you hear it,

He said to him

(R' Chiya)

One day I was going on the road and I heard and I saw Rav Hamnuna Saba

(other version: R' Shimon)

who was expounding this verse to R' Acha".

And my master, my father, in his notes to the book of the Zohar, elaborated in explaining the words of the Zohar according to Kabbalah,

And within his words he wrote⁵,

And this is his language:

"Rabbi Chiyya at first, when he said to Rabbi Yossi this discourse, did not say it in the name of Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Shimon,

And at first glance, behold, one must say a thing in the name of its sayer,

And as the statement⁶

Whoever says a thing in the name of its sayer brings redemption to the world,

Behold, according to the simple explanation, one can say that when must one say a thing in the name of its sayer? It is when the sayer of the thing said it to this one who says it, then he is required to say it in the name of its sayer,

And as with Mordechai and Esther, from where we learn this, that Mordechai said to Esther as it is written⁷

And he told Esther the queen,

Then the one who hears from him is required to say it in the name of its sayer, as it is written⁷

And Esther said to the king in the name of Mordechai,

But not so in our case: Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Shimon did not say this to Rabbi Chiyya, only to Rabbi Acha,

And Rabbi Chiyya, who happened to be there, heard this as well, but Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Shimon did not say it to him,

Then he is not obligated to say it in the name of its sayer,

For regarding this there is no proof from Mordechai and Esther, for there Mordechai said to Esther,

And only when Rabbi Yossi asked him, 'From whom did you hear this?' then Rabbi Chiyya told him from whom he heard.

And based on this, it is also explained the language of "from whom did you hear it" and not "who told you",

it is because Rabbi Yosi understood that they did not say this exposition to Rabbi Chiya, because if so he would have said it in the name of its speaker..

Therefore he asked "from whom did you hear it",

meaning not "who told you" but "from whom did you hear it",

that they did not say this to Rabbi Chiya, but rather Rabbi Chiya heard this".

End of his words.

2.

And it needs to be understood: saying a matter in the name of its speaker is not only a segulah for redemption as per the aforementioned words of our Sages "Whoever says a matter in the name of its speaker brings redemption to the world"

(whose source is in Tractate Avot,

and it is also brought in Chullin⁸

and in Niddah⁹,

as my master and father wrote in the continuation of his words there),

but rather it is an absolute obligation,

and it is brought as halacha in the Magen Avraham¹⁰,

that "Whoever does not say a matter in the name of its speaker transgresses<pg>181</pg>

B'lav

(Nedarim, first chapter¹¹)

"

[And its source is in the Midrash¹²

"Said Rabbi Chizkiyah, said Rabbi Yirmiyah bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Anyone who does not say a thing in the name of its speaker, about him the verse says¹³

Do not rob the poor because he is poor, and a person, when he hears a thing, must say it in the name of its speaker"¹⁴].

And according to this, it is puzzling in what my master and father, of blessed memory, wrote, that simply one can say that the time when one must say a thing in the name of its speaker is when the speaker said it to this one who says it, then he must say it in the name of its speaker,

And as with Mordechai and Esther" — at first glance,

this distinction has a place only regarding the segulah of bringing redemption to the world,

For when the speaker only heard the thing from its speaker but did not say it to him, there is no proof from Mordechai and Esther, because "there Mordechai said to Esther",

But regarding the prohibition of "Do not rob the poor", it is understood that it also applies when one hears a thing that was said to another person,

And on the contrary,

at first glance it is more in the category of "robbery"¹⁵

from the author of the statement when he hears a thing that was said to another,

For the author of the statement did not intend to say it to him but to someone else,

And it is as if he snatches and says what he heard from the mouths of others without mentioning the name of its speaker.

And it must be said that it speaks here in a manner that there is not in this the prohibition of "Do not rob the poor."

3.

And this will be understood with the introduction that we find several statements of our Sages that were not said in the name of their speaker,

as emphasized especially regarding Rabbi Eliezer the Great,

that even though "he never said a thing that he did not hear from his teacher"¹⁶,

nevertheless there are many of his statements in which he did not mention the name of his teacher¹⁷,

and why did he not care about that which anyone who does not say a thing in the name of its speaker transgresses a negative commandment.

[At first glance, one could say based on what is said in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

"R' Elazar went and stated the teaching in the study hall and did not state it in the name of R' Yochanan; R' Yochanan heard and became angry, etc. R' Ami and R' Asi came to him and said to him, etc. And is it that for every matter that Yehoshua said, he would say to them, 'Thus said Moshe to me'? Rather, Yehoshua would sit and expound anonymously, and everyone knew that his Torah is from Moshe.

So too, R' Elazar your student sits and expounds anonymously, and everyone knows that it is yours"&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;.

And based on this, one could say that in this manner it is also regarding R' Eliezer&lt;pg&gt;182&lt;/pg&gt;

the Great,

who did not need to say his words in the name of his teacher because everyone knows that all his words are of his teacher²⁰.

But at first glance it is forced to explain thus the conduct of Rabbi Eliezer the Great,

for from what he said "much Torah I learned and I did not lack from my teachers"²¹,

"my teachers" plural language,

it is proven that he had more than one teacher,

and if so, he needed to mention²²

in each matter from which teacher he received it].

According to simple understanding, one must say that the prohibition of "Do not rob the poor" is like robbery in its simple sense,

that a matter about which the owner is not particular has no [issue of] robbery²³,

and likewise in matters of Torah, that the prohibition is only when the speaker is particular that the matter be said in his name,

but when he is not particular, there is no prohibition of "Do not rob the poor",

and therefore it is understood that Rabbi Eliezer did not transgress this, because his teachers were not particular about this.

But beyond the difficulty in the matter itself,

that seemingly the teacher must explicitly announce that he is not particular, and it is not sufficient that the student knows this from reasoning

[And further,

that seemingly in order to nullify the obligation to say a matter in the name of its speaker due to the honor of one's teacher,

it is not sufficient that his teacher only not be particular about this, but rather forgiveness is required],

this only nullifies the prohibition,

but it is obvious that this is not the mehudar (embellished) and beyond the line of the law,

and on the contrary, he performs a mitzvah if he says it in his name²⁴,

for "Do not²⁵

withhold good from its owners"²⁶.

4.

And it seems to me the explanation in this:

Even though Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said about his student Rabbi Eliezer that he is "a plastered cistern that does not lose a drop"²⁷,

it is understood that Rabbi Eliezer was not satisfied with knowledge of his teacher's Torah,

but certainly he toiled and delved into understanding the matters until they were solidified in his intellect and his comprehension,

in a manner that he was convinced and understood the matters and they became his intellect,

and if so, what he said afterwards this thing is not a matter of repetition of his teacher's words alone but rather this thing was necessary from the side of his intellect.

And as explained in various places&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

regarding Tannaim and Amoraim,

that their rulings of laws were according to the root of their souls,

and like in the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

that Beit Shammai whose root is from the aspect of gevurot&lt;pg&gt;183&lt;/pg&gt;

are stringent,

and Beit Hillel whose root is from the aspect of chassadim are lenient&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

— for seemingly,

the Torah is not in heaven&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

and how is it possible to rule according to the root of their souls?

— but their ruling was after contemplation and exertion in their intellect as they are below,

souls in bodies specifically,

that is,

that they were not satisfied with what was received by them from the aspect of the root of their souls,

but they exerted themselves in understanding and grasping the matter until they understood it thus in their intellect below in the body&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;].

And this matter,

that a matter of Torah that becomes absorbed with his intellect is considered his,

we also find in halachah,

as it is brought in the Gemara³²

that "a teacher who forgives his honor, his honor is forgiven, as it is said³³

And the Lord went before them by day..

How can this be compared? There, the Holy One, blessed be He, the world is His and the Torah is His, He forgives His honor; here, the Torah is hers

(with a question,

honor depends on Torah and he cannot forgive the honor of the Torah, which belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He.

Rashi),

Then Rava said: No,

the Torah is his, as it is written³⁴

and in His Torah he meditates day and night",

and Rashi explains: "For³⁴

if in the Torah of the Lord is his desire and in His Torah he meditates,

at first it is called the Torah of the Lord, and after he learns it and reviews it, it is called his Torah"³⁵,

behold, the toil in Torah is in a manner that a person has ownership over the Torah until he can forgive the honor of the Torah.

And based on this, it is understood in our matter,

the conduct of Rabbi Elazar the Great,

that there is not in this matter the concept of "Do not rob the poor"^*35,

because he becomes the owner of the Torah that he learned.

And now it is understood why my master, my father, and my teacher did not mention in the explanation of the words of the Zohar the prohibition of "Do not rob the poor" but only the matter of "brings redemption to the world" — because regarding Rosh Chodesh the matter of "Do not rob the poor" does not apply

[As is proven from this very fact that Rosh Chodesh did not mention the name of the one who said the teaching until Rabbi Yosi asked him "From whom did you hear it"],

And this is because he toiled in the matter&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

until he understood the thing with his intellect and internalized it,

and as above.

[And similarly is that which my master, my father, and my teacher brought&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

"That which we find in Chullin page 104 and in Keritot page 23 and in Niddah page 19 that they taught in the Mishnah the opinion of the first Tanna and afterwards the opinion of Rabbi Yosi,

and the Gemara there asks: Rabbi Yosi is the same as the first Tanna,

and it answers: This teaches us that the first Tanna is Rabbi Yosi,

all&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

who says a thing in the name of its speaker brings redemption to the world, as it is said: And Esther said to the king in the name of Mordechai..

And see in Rashi's commentary on Chullin there that the Tanna forgot and did not mention his name at first and then repeated&lt;pg&gt;184&lt;/pg&gt;

And he mentioned his name" — and the explanation of my master, my father, the Rebbe³⁹

that from this itself that the Tanna forgot and did not mention his name at the beginning and later returned and mentioned his name,

it is understood,

that there was no obligation in this to mention his name^*39

— and it is understood,

that all the more so there was no prohibition in this of "Do not steal,"

and this is as above, because he exerted himself until he understood the matter in his intellect].

5.

And behold, it is understood that the matter of "one who says a thing in the name of its speaker" that is stated in the chapter "Acquisition of Torah,"

is not in a place where there is a prohibition,

but rather it is a matter of the quality of piety,

like the other matters in Pirkei Avot⁴⁰.

And that is, that it does not deal with a tradition and a law

(and certainly not studies, explanations, and rationales)^*40

that he received and were not solidified in his mind and intellect,

in which case he is obligated in the matter,

but rather in a manner that openly it is a thing that is solidified in his intellect,

and that which he says this thing is not because he received it from his teacher but it is a matter that is particular to his intellect specifically,

to the extent that all of it is his study and his explanation and his rationale,

behold, even in this there is a special virtue

(because of a matter of piety)

when he says the thing in the name of its speaker.

And one must understand why in a case such as this, where this thing is verified in his intellect, there is in this the matter of "one who says a thing in the name of its speaker brings redemption to the world,"

since this saying is not because he heard the thing from the speaker but because he so understood in his intellect.

And on the other hand,

since in this matter there is the concept of brings redemption to the world,

what is the explanation in this that when the speaker did not say it to him but he heard when the other said it to another person,

in this there is not the segulah of "brings redemption to the world"

(as above section 1).

6.

And this will be understood by prefacing the explanation of the concept of "one who says a thing in the name of its speaker" which is brought first in Tractate Avot in the Baraitha of the acquisition of Torah,

which is the last of the forty-eight things by which the Torah is acquired,

and afterwards it concludes "you have learned: anyone who says a thing in the name of its speaker brings redemption to the world, as it is said 'And Esther said to the king in the name of Mordechai'".

And it is understood from this,

that even though the matter of the attribute of piety

like the other matters in Pirkei Avot⁴⁰,

and not an actual obligation,

nevertheless, this relates to the acquisition of Torah,

and furthermore,

from the fact that this matter is counted at the end of the forty-eight things

(which are counted from the light to the heavy),

it implies,

that in matters of piety of the acquisition of Torah itself,

it is in a superior level and rank

(and afterwards it adds yet another level,

that it brings redemption to the world⁴¹).

And the explanation of the matter:

Just as it is in the entirety of the Torah,

that the student must know the tradition, who received from whom, as the Tanna arranged at the beginning of Tractate Avot,

and as the Rambam elaborated in his introduction to the book Yad, regarding the forty generations in the transmission of the Torah⁴²,

so too is it in every particular matter in the halacha and the reasoning of the halacha,

even matters that he innovated on his own and the like,

behold, when one says from which study hall this innovation comes — there is in this an aspect of strengthening the matter of the "tradition" in the Torah.

And this is not only in matters that came from the mouth of the &lt;pg&gt;185&lt;/pg&gt;

A tradition or a law [given] to Moses from Sinai and the like,

that in this there is no novelty [in] saying from whom he received this tradition⁴³,

but also in matters dependent on reasoning,

that a worthy student innovated⁴⁴

by means of one of the principles by which the Torah is expounded,

or by means of reasoning in the depth of the reasons of the laws⁴⁵,

behold, the foundation and the "way of study" he received from his teacher

(and the like),

therefore there is a matter to mention the name of his teacher⁴⁶.

And this is the inner explanation of that which it concludes "you have learned: whoever says a thing in the name of its speaker brings redemption to the world"

(for at first glance,

redemption to the world — what is it doing here?)

— that the virtue in this, that even these things he says in the name of its speaker, is thus,

that through this he reveals

(redeemer)

the concealment of all matters of the Torah,

that the root and truth of all details of laws, explanations and reasoning that were innovated by each and every one is in that which was said to Moses from Sinai^*46.

That is,

that in addition to the knowledge of the entire Torah which he knows from its tradition up to Moses from Sinai,

he redeems every detail of the words of Torah,

by means of this that he reveals the first speaker,

who is Moses our teacher from the mouth of the Almighty⁴⁷.

7.

And according to all this perhaps one may explain the words of my master, my father, my teacher,

"that simply it can be said that when one needs to say a thing in the name of its speaker is when the speaker said it to this person who says it,

but if he did not say it to him then he is not obligated to say it in the name of its speaker":

In the definition^*47

The Torah has two things:

(a)

Transmission from generation to generation,

(b)

What Israel⁴⁸

add and innovate in the Torah.

And like the Tannaim,

that "many matters

(that)

were innovated in the Oral Torah and only supported them on a verse"⁴⁹

And even there are "the decrees and enactments and customs"⁵⁰

that come entirely through the sages and even become Torah specifically through Israel,

because only matters that spread among Israel and the majority of the public can stand in them became a part of the Torah⁵¹.

And this matter is from the essence of the definition of the Torah,

because since the Torah is not in heaven but was given into the ownership of Israel,

and the ruling of the laws of the Torah is according to what appears in their intellect,

And even<pg>186</pg>

The Holy One, blessed be He, laughed and said, "My children have defeated Me, My children have defeated Me"⁵²,

Therefore, the nature of the Torah is that there are such matters that came in a manner of innovation by the sages of Israel.

And these two modes also come in hearing words of Torah from one's teacher:

(a)

A student whose teacher studies with him,

(b)

One who hears something that was not said to him,

It is as if the matter became known to him on his own; and these are the two modes within the nature of the Torah — as it comes in tradition from one to another,

And as it comes on his own,

Since that which he knows this matter in the Torah is not because his teacher or his friend told him, but he received it without the matter being transmitted to him specifically.

And upon this depends the definition of saying "a thing in the name of its speaker": the obligation to say a thing in the name of its speaker emphasizes

(as above)

the matter of transmitting all matters of Torah from generation to generation,

and this matter is when the speaker said it to him specifically

(even when afterwards the matter was verified through his intellectual vessel)

; and the manner in which he is not obligated to say in the name of the speaker

(also because of matters of Chassidus)

— when he heard the matter without the speaker speaking to him — comes to teach us this definition that is in the Torah that comes from the side of Israel who add and innovate in Torah

(not through transmission from generation to generation).

8.

And based on this, it is possible to explain what my master, my father, and my teacher said in the continuation of his words,

that the reason for this that Rabbi Yosi asked him "from whom did you hear it?" is,

because "Rabbi Yosi specifically is particular that they say in the name of its speaker..

even if the speaker did not say it to him, only that he heard from the speaker in the manner that was regarding Rosh Chodesh here, that Rabbi Huna did not say it to Rabbi Chisda, rather to Rav Acha, and Rabbi Chisda only heard

[and even more so that "in this discourse, Rabbi Chisda understood one thing from another thing..

Rabbi Chisda himself innovated them",

as my master, my father, and my teacher said here&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;]

nevertheless, he also must say in the name of its speaker, and therefore he asked him 'from whom did you hear it?'".

And he explains,

that "R' Yosi's aspect is in the manner of the aspect of Esther, for Esther is the aspect of Malchus, and likewise R' Yosi is the aspect of Malchus."

And the explanation of the matters,

for the sefirah of Malchus is the end of all levels,

it has nothing of its own,

and therefore in it is emphasized that even the innovations that come from the side of Israel are from the Holy One, blessed be He,

and on the contrary, from a more elevated level⁵⁴,

from this aspect that Israel and the Holy One, blessed be He, are entirely one.

And for this very reason the story came regarding R. Y. that at first he did not tell him from whom he heard it,

only after R. Y. asked him from whom did you hear it,

[And similarly regarding the Mishnah in Chullin, Keritot, and Niddah that they taught in the Mishnah the opinion of Tanna Kamma and afterwards the opinion of R. Y.,

that the Tanna did not mention his name at first and then repeated and mentioned his name,

it teaches us who is Tanna Kamma? R. Yosi],

Because from the level of revelation as it is arranged according to the order of the chain of descent of the Torah

(both in the revealed part of Torah and in the inner dimension of Torah in the Zohar),

there is not here the concept of mesorah, but rather its content is entirely from the innovation of Israel,

and only from the perspective of Rabbi Yosi,

the aspect of Malchus,

it is felt as it is from the aspect of the Essence⁵⁵,

that also the innovation that comes from the recipient,

behold the power of the innovation itself is from the Holy One, blessed be He,

as above.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Tisa 5740,

Shabbos Parshas Balak 5743)