English translation — ויקהל

And he assembled<pg>187</pg>

A.

The Rambam wrote in Hilchos Shabbos<sup>1</sup>

: "One who kindles any amount is liable,

provided that he needs the ash,

but if he kindled destructively he is exempt because he is causing damage,

and one who kindles another's stack etc. is liable even though he is destroying, because his intent is to take revenge on his enemy, and his mind is cooled etc. they are constructive in relation to the evil inclination.

And similarly, one who lights a candle or wood, whether to warm himself or to illuminate, behold he is liable."

And behold, the approach of the Alter Rebbe is known

(in the opinion of the Rambam)

regarding the definition of the melacha of kindling<sup>2</sup>,

that "the matter of kindling is the bringing out of fire or increasing the fire",

that "although the one who kindles is not liable unless he needs the ashes,

nevertheless the essence of the liability is not because of the burning and consumption of the wood but because of the increase of the fire"<sup>3</sup>,

and he proves this from what the Rambam wrote

(at the end of this halacha)

"regarding heating iron in fire"

["one who heats iron in order to temper it in water, this is a derivative of kindler and is liable"]

and in the Maggid Mishneh there "that anything that itself becomes fire etc. is a kindler" — although in heating iron there is no consumption; and the Alter Rebbe continues,

that so too it is implied from the law<sup>4</sup>

(that is brought in the Rambam here)

"that one who lights<sup>5</sup>

a lamp, even though he does not need the ashes, is liable"<sup>6</sup>.

And in Tzafnat Paneach<sup>7</sup>

he brings another proof that the approach of the Rambam is that "the definition of kindling" is not "that through this what burns is consumed" but "the existence of fire" — from that which we hold

(according to the ruling of the Rambam here)

that one who kindles any amount is also liable,

that "if it were because of the thing being kindled, it would require a measure for each according to what it is".

And based on this, [we] understand the language of the Rambam and the order of his words in this halacha,

that at first

(and as the main definition of the melacha)

he cited kindling for the sake of the ash,

and only at the end he also cited kindling for the sake of the fire itself

("to warm oneself" or "to light").

According to the explanation⁸

that the definition of the melacha of kindling is "burning and consuming the wood",

it is well that he cited the example of "needs the ash",

because this need pertains to the essence of the melacha

(burning and consuming the wood),

since the ash is produced from the consumption of the wood,

and only afterwards there is room to add,

that also when the need is not for the ash

(produced from the consumption of the wood),

but for the warmth and light

(of the fire),

one is also liable for [the violation of] kindling;

But since the approach of the Rambam is that the definition of the melacha of kindling is "the bringing out of the fire",

it would have been appropriate to begin with the example that he brought later "one who lights the candle..

whether to warm oneself or to <pg>188</pg>

the light",

that heat and light are a need in the essence of the fire — and why did he begin with the example of "needs the ash",

that the ash is produced by "the destruction and burning of the wood"<sup>9</sup>?

2.

In simple terms, one must say:

What the Rambam said, that one who kindles is liable only when he "needs the ash,"

and also "whether to warm oneself or to illuminate,"

is only

(as explained in the Rambam here)

that it should not be destructive¹⁰

(and not because otherwise it would be a labor not needed for its own sake,

since according to the opinion of the Rambam¹¹

they are liable also for a labor not needed for its own sake).

And based on this, one must explain the reason that he began the kindling in a manner "that he would need the ash,"

because in this manner it is more emphasized that there is here no matter of destruction and waste,

even from the side of the action itself of burning and consuming the wood,

since he needs the ash,

it is found,

that there is here no act of destruction and consumption

(nullification of the existence of the wood),

but rather an act of rectification,

that he makes

(and transforms)

the wood into ash

(which he needs)¹².

But not so when he lights the lamp "whether to warm oneself or to illuminate,"

behold, even though the intention of the person is for the sake of the rectification done by the fire

(warmth or light),

nevertheless,

behold, there is a side of damage in this action,

damage to the wood for the sake of the rectification through the fire¹³.

But this is not a sufficient explanation,

because after all,

since "the essence of the obligation..

is because of the increase of the fire,"

he should have begun the description of the labor of kindling in a manner appropriate to the essence of the labor of kindling,

that the person does the labor for the sake of the intention of the labor itself

(the bringing out of the fire),

and that is that he needs the fire itself

(for the sake of the heat of the fire or the light of the fire¹⁴).

[And one should add and note: The main need and necessity to negate that one who kindles is not destroying,

is for the reasoning that the labor of kindling is "burning and consuming the wood",

according to which it is found,

that essentially the labor of kindling is a labor of destruction

(burning and consumption),

and it is understood the necessity to emphasize immediately at the beginning of the description of the labor,

that one is liable for it only when it is not

(but rather)

ruination and destruction<sup>15</sup>

; but since according to the opinion of the Rambam "<pg>189</pg>

the primary liability is not because of the burning and consumption of the wood but because of the increase of fire",

then the content of the labor of kindling is not a matter of destruction

(burning and consumption)

but rather a matter of repair,

"the bringing out of fire or one who increases the fire"].

And from this it is understood,

that also according to what the Alter Rebbe said that "the concept of kindling is the extraction of fire or that he increases the fire",

nevertheless,

the essential definition of the labor of kindling is when he "needs the ash",

and therefore the Rambam begins in this manner,

and continues "and likewise one who lights a candle..

whether to warm himself or to illuminate, behold he is liable",

for although in this manner he does not need the ash,

nevertheless "behold he is liable".

3.

And one must explain this

(in the inwardness of the matters),

and with a preface,

that the thirty-nine labors forbidden on Shabbat are the labors that were done in the Mishkan¹⁶,

from this itself it is understood,

that although the thirty-nine labors of Shabbat are weekday works

(therefore they are forbidden on the holy day of Shabbat),

nevertheless,

in their root and source in holiness

(as is known that everything in the world, its root and source is in holiness)

behold they are general and primary works of a Jewish person in his service to his Master,

to make from the world a dwelling and Mishkan for G‑d,

"And they shall make¹⁷

Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst".

And so it is regarding the particular details of the conditions and definitions of the 39 labors of Shabbat,

which determine what is

(Av)

a labor for which one is liable,

their foundation and essence is according to how they are labors in the service of man to his Creator,

that the service is not considered complete service without these conditions and definitions,

but rather from this it later descends to the matter of the labors of Shabbat,

that without these conditions and definitions it is not a labor for which one is liable on Shabbat.

And based on this we can say regarding our matter,

that the inner reason that the Rambam established at the beginning of the labor of kindling the manner of one who kindles when he "needs the ash"

(even though "the essence of the liability..

is because of the increase of fire"),

is because the concept of the labor of kindling in spiritual service requires that "he should need the ash".

4.

Explanation of the matter:

It is written¹⁸

"The soul of man is the lamp of G-d",

And the work of "kindling" in the service of man its meaning is the lighting of the "lamp" of the soul that it should burn with love like fiery flames to G-d.

And behold, it is explained in Tanya<sup>19</sup>,

that just as the light of a candle "moves always upward by its nature, because the fire-light desires by nature to separate from the wick and to cleave to its source above..

even though through this it will be extinguished and will not illuminate anything below, and also above, in its source, its light will be nullified in existence in its source..

so is the soul of man..

desires and yearns by its nature to separate and to go out from the body and to cleave to its source and its origin in G-d",

that is, that the matter of the "fire" of the soul is the sparks of fire of love for G-d that cause a person to ascend upward with soul-longing for G-d.

And this is also the inner explanation of that which "one who kindles

(even)

any amount",

that the labor of kindling has no measure

(in quantity)

— because the matter of the labor of kindling in the service of G-d is the movement of self-sacrifice to G-d,

that this desire "to separate and to go out from the body and to cleave to its source and its origin..

even though it will be naught and nothing and will be nullified there in existence entirely and nothing will remain of it of its former essence and substance"<sup>20</sup>,

its source is in the point of Judaism,

which is "<pg>190</pg>

Part of G-d from above literally"²¹,

and therefore the quantity is not significant here,

because it is a simple point that is above division,

for also in "any amount" there is all

(the quality of)

the point of the soul.

And in this the Rambam adds,

that together with this there must be the condition "and that he needs the ash":

"Ash" is the most physical and material part of the thing burned in fire,

And in the language of the Alter Rebbe²²,

that when one burns wood, the three elements of fire, wind, and water in the wood "have passed and gone and are consumed in smoke",

but the ash that remains is "the earth in it that descends downward and fire does not rule over it, it remains enduring..

It is more material than all of them".

And this is the condition in the labor of kindling "that he should need the ash": the purpose of the kindling of the fire of the soul must be not for the ascent

(the fire)

alone — "to separate and depart from the body" — but for the drawing down²³,

"he needs the ash",

that the person should feel that he needs the physicality of the world,

namely that he needs to remain a soul in a body and engage with the physicality of the world to refine and purify it etc.

And on the contrary,

this is the purpose of the kindling of the fire of the soul,

that this awakening in flames of love until a feeling of soul-consuming and desire to cleave to its root and source,

is only so that from this one should come to additional strengthening in the service of observing the Torah and commandments while being a soul in a body in this physical world.

And this is,

because the entire matter of the work of the Mishkan — which is itself the source of the 39 forbidden labors — is to complete the intention of the creation of the world,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling place in the lower worlds²⁴,

and so it is with the personal Mishkan within each and every Jew

(as our Sages, of blessed memory, said²⁵

on the verse¹⁷

"And I will dwell in their midst — within each and every Jew"),

that the matter of the work of the Mishkan is what a person needs to do: to make the world a dwelling place and Mishkan for Him, blessed be He.

And therefore the forbidden labor of kindling is not complete until "he needs the ash",

that it be felt,

that the intention of the kindling of the divine fire within his soul is for the sake of the "ash",

the making of a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He, in the lower worlds.

5.

And on a deeper level:

In the explanation of the matter,

that the kindling of the fire

(the consuming of the soul of the soul)

and "it needs ash" are two opposites,

but since the ultimate intention is to make the world a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He,

therefore the purpose of the arousal of the fire of love must be for the sake of the "ash,"

the refinement and purification of the physicality of the world — and moreover,

that the condition of "it needs ash" is the aspect that the kindling of the fire of the soul is proper.

For when the arousal of the sparks of the fire of love for God is complete,

then the fire of the soul itself compels that "it needs ash."

And the explanation of this²⁶

:

Since the matter of "dwelling in the lower realms",

making this world a dwelling and sanctuary for Him, blessed be He,

is the intention of the Essence,

that He, blessed be He, "<pg>191</pg>

desired" to me,

it is understood,

that the more a person ascends higher,

and draws closer to his root and source "in G-d, the Life of lives, blessed be He"<sup>20</sup>,

the more he feels the necessity and the imperative to descend below and engage in refining and purifying the world,

to make it a dwelling and sanctuary for Him, blessed be He,

since only thereby is the intention of the Essence fulfilled.

And it is found,

that the time of the kindling of the fire of the soul, the work and labor in completeness,

that the desire of the soul to cleave to Him, blessed be He, is in completeness and it is an ascent in truth — only when it brings to a drawing down below — "

(needs to)

aphar"²⁷.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Yisro 5749,

Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel 5714)