English translation — בא ב

A.

Regarding the time of the Exodus from Egypt,

it says in this week's portion¹

that this was "on that very day,"

which means: "at midday"².

And that which it says "a <b>night</b> of watching etc. to bring them out of the land of Egypt"³

— and also in the book of Deuteronomy⁴

it says "the L-rd your G-d brought you out of Egypt <b>by night</b>" — it refers to that which Pharaoh gave them permission to go out of Egypt⁵,

that <b>that</b> was at night,

and as it is told in this week's portion⁶

"And he called to Moses and to Aaron <b>by night</b> and said, Arise, go out from among my people etc."

The actual exodus, however — was only by day.

And moreover: <b>not</b> only that <b>actually</b> they went out of Egypt by day,

but they <b>could not</b> go out of Egypt <b>at all</b> by night — because Moses told them "You shall not go out, each man from the door of his house, <b>until morning</b>"⁷.

Based on this,

that in Yetzias Mitzrayim there are two times — the actual exodus "on this very day",

and the permission for it at night — one could seemingly explain a dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel,

as follows.

2.

Regarding the matter of reciting Hallel on the night of Pesach

(<b>before</b> eating the Pesach sacrifice),

the Mishnah says⁸

"Until where does he recite",

until where does one recite Hallel,

whether only until "Em habanim semechah" — which is the opinion of Beis Shammai; or one also recites "Betzas Yisrael miMitzrayim" until "Chalamish lemayno mayim" — and so hold Beis Hillel.

It stands in the Yerushalmi⁹,

that the reason of Beit Shammai is "When Israel went out of Egypt, that he mentions the Exodus from Egypt."

Beit Hillel however hold: Since that even "he waits until the cock crows, they have not yet reached half of redemption",

one says therefore "When Israel went out of Egypt" right after the first chapter of Hallel

(before the eating of the Paschal lamb),

because — "Since he began with the commandment,

one says to him 'Maror'."

And seemingly,

what is indeed the reason of Beit Shammai to say "When Israel went out of Egypt" after the eating of the Paschal lamb — also then it is still <b>before</b> the time of the redemption

(as per the question of Beit Hillel)?

Can explain it

(according to the above),

That since also the permission to go out from Egypt is called by the verse "when you bring out etc. from Egypt",

And this¹⁰

was indeed

(immediately)

after midnight — therefore Beit Shammai hold that one must say "When Israel went out from Egypt" after the eating of the Passover which¹¹

its time

(of the Passover)

is until midnight¹²

(the time of permission,

which also is called "going out").

It is however difficult to learn thus in the opinion of Beit Shammai.

For according to this they should have held,

that one should wait with saying the chapter until after midnight

(not only after the time of eating the Passover which can also end before midnight).

Why do they hold that one says it immediately after the eating of the Passover — even before midnight¹³?

· 3.

It will be understood by prefacing that we find many disputes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel,

where the foundation of their disagreement consists in this,

that Beis Shammai hold "we follow the potential" and Beis Hillel hold "we follow the actual"¹⁴.

For example¹⁵

a)

"Honeycombs¹⁶

From when do they become susceptible to impurity as a liquid

(from when are they considered as a liquid regarding receiving impurity),

Beis Shammai say: from when he intends¹⁷

: "from when he crushes"].

Beis Hillel say: from when he crushes."

· — Why they hold,

that the reality is determined by the "actual",

and therefore they hold "Mash- yirsek",

because only then does it become an actual beverage; but Beit Shammai hold that also "potential" is sufficient,

therefore they say "Mashiyahrer"

(or at most "Mashichrchr").

Although the actual is not yet present,

because even then it is already a beverage "in potential".

b)

"On the first of Shevat is the New Year for trees according to the words of Beit Shammai.

Beit Hillel say on the fifteenth of it"¹⁹.

Why is the New Year for trees

(according to both opinions)

specifically in the month of Shevat?

It stands in the Yerushalmi²⁰,

that this is because "until here they live from the waters of the previous year,

from here onward they live from the waters of the coming year".

d.

e.

that the effect of the waters on the trees is only after four months la‑ ter,

and the trees whose blossoming was before the month of Shevat

(that is, four months have passed from the beginning of the rains of the new year)

— their vitality is "from the waters of the previous year".

And based on this one can say²¹,

that the dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding the time of Rosh Hashanah for trees — whether it is "on the first of Shevat" or "on the fifteenth of it",

it is

(not a dispute about reality,

but rather)

due to the fact that in the trees' suckling "from the waters of the coming year" there are two times

(as will be explained below section d)

Their suckling <b>in potential</b> from the "waters of the coming year" is "on the first of Shevat",

but their suckling <b>in actuality</b> from these very waters is on the fifteenth of Shevat.

Therefore,

Beis Shammai,

who hold "we follow the potential",

they say that the New Year for trees is on the first of Shevat; and Beis Hillel,

who hold "we follow the actual",

they say that this is "on the fifteenth of it".

· D.

Now, the explanation in this: the time of "judgment on the waters"

(in actuality and revealed)

is "on the festival"²²

(Sukkos)

— the fifteenth of Tishrei.

But in potential and concealment the judgment is on the first of Tishrei,

because on Rosh Hashanah

(the first of Tishrei)

is indeed the judgment and verdict on all matters of the world — including also "on the waters"²⁴.

And since the nourishment of the trees from the water begins four months after the judgment on the water,

it turns out,

that their nourishment in concealment and in potential is on the first of Shevat — four months after the judgment that is in potential and in concealment.

Their nourishment in actuality and in revelation, however,

is on the fifteenth of Shevat — four months after the judgment in actuality and in revelation.

· H.

One of the explanations for why the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel must stand both regarding "honey cakes" and regarding "New Year for trees" — although in both places their dispute is due to the same reason:

"Rosh Hashanah for trees" is no more than a matter of "in potential."

Because what with four months later the trees will be "living from the water of the coming year,"

will also then the "life" be only a matter of "budding,"

which is still quite far from the completion of growth that comes much later.

So if the view of Beit Shammai that "we follow the potential" would stand only by Rosh Hashanah for trees,

one could say that this is because even on the fifteenth of Shevat there will be no more than budding of the trees — a matter of "in potential"

(no more,

that the "potential" itself will then be "actual"),

and in "potential" itself they make no distinction

("potential" or the "actual" of that "potential")

Therefore the opinion of Beit Shammai also stands by "honey loaves"²⁵,

in order to let us know,

that also there,

where after he will crush the honey it will become actual liquid drink — Beit Shammai still follow their method that "we follow the potential"²⁶.

On the other hand,

when the opinion of Beit Shammai stands by honey loaves

(it is additional — that one could say that Beit Hillel concede by Rosh Hashanah for trees,

for the aforementioned reason — it is also regarding Beit Shammai)

one could not learn from there what is their opinion regarding Rosh Hashanah for trees,

because one could say,

that that which by honey loaves they hold that we follow the potential — it is because at the time that he considers

(or stirs up),

although that the crushing exists only "potentially",

nevertheless it is in his hand to bring it immediately from potential to actual²⁷

And therefore B"Sh must let their view be heard also by Rosh Hashanah for trees,

that also in a case where it is <b>not possible</b> that the "actual" — the ripening — should be at the time of the "potential" — on the first of Shevat — also there²⁸

is "we follow the potential"²⁹.

<b>·</b> 6.

The view of B"Sh that "we follow the potential",

does not mean only that when a certain thing is still only in potential,

it is <b>sufficient</b>

(regarding halacha)

exactly as if the thing had already come into actuality

which according to the opinion of Beit Shammai,

is that as soon as the "honey cakes" became a liquid "in potential",

they already receive a status of liquid; and so too regarding "Rosh Hashanah for trees" — because on the first of Shevat the suckling of the trees already begins "in potential" from the waters of the new year,

this "in potential" is already sufficient that due to it the day

(first of Shevat)

be the time of Rosh Hashanah for trees],

But even more: according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, the "in potential" has in itself <b>more</b> importance than the "in actuality",

and specifically the "in potential" <b>determines</b> the reality of the thing.

And as we see it in their dispute on B"H regarding "Mitzvas Chanukah"³⁰

where Beis Shammai hold that the number of the Chanukah lights is determined "corresponding to the days that are entering" — according to the days that will come,

i.e.

i.e.

which in actuality will come only later and in the meantime they exist only in potential.

And therefore Beis Shammai say "On the first day one lights eight,

from there onward decreasing and going",

because the beginning of the first day in itself includes

(in potential)

eight days,

the second — no more than seven,

etc.;

And Beis Hillel hold that the number of the lights is determined "corresponding to the days that are going out",

according to the days that have already been in actuality.

And therefore they say "On the first day one lights one,

from there onward increasing and going" — because on the first day there is "in actuality" only one day,

on the second day — two days,

etc.

one sees from this regarding the method of Beit Shammai,

that that which "we follow the potential" is not only that the "potential" is considered <b>as if</b> the thing were already also in actuality,

but rather³¹

: the "potential" is the <b>essence</b> and according to <b>it</b> is determined the reality of the thing — therefore the number of lights of Chanukah is determined "corresponding to the days that are entering" and <b>not</b><b>³²</b>

"corresponding to the days that are departing"³³.

· Z.

Based on the above one can also explain the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages and Rabban Gamliel regarding the end time of the evening Shema³⁴

: Rabbi Eliezer holds "until the end of the first watch",

and the Sages ³⁵

and Rabban Gamliel hold that the time

(from the Torah ³⁵)

is "until the dawn rises".

Rashi explains³⁶,

that the foundation of their dispute is in the interpretation of "בשכבך" ³³

: R. Eliezer holds,

that "בשכבך" means "all the time that people are <b>occupied</b> going to lie down",

which "occupied etc." is only until the end of the first watch; and the Sages and Rabban Gamliel hold that "בשכבך" is "all the time that people lie down" — and that is all night.

Why indeed does R. Eliezer learn that it means "occupied going to lie down" and the Sages with Rabban Gamliel — "that people <b>lie down</b>"?

So

(according to the above)

the explanation in this is:

When a person is occupied with going to sleep,

then in this is included potentially the entire time that he will afterwards sleep in actuality.

And therefore,

are the Sages and Rabban Gamliel,

who hold

(according to the method of Beit Hillel³⁸)

that "we follow the actual" — they learn that "when you lie down" means the time when people lie down <b>in actuality</b>; but Rabbi Eliezer,

who was from the students of Beit Shammai³⁹

and he therefore holds that "we follow the potential",

he learns that "when you lie down" means the time when people are <b>occupied</b> with going and lying down.

One sees here,

that according to the method of Beit Shammai one looks <b>only</b> at the "potential" — therefore Rabbi Eliezer holds

(from the students of Beit Shammai)

that after the first watch — although then there is the lying down in actuality — one can <b>not</b> recite the Shema,

since the "potential" is no longer present.

· Ch.

And it must explicitly state the opinion of Beis Shammai that "we follow the potential" both regarding the time of Kriyas Shema and regarding the Chanukah lights — because there is a novelty in their view regarding the time of Kriyas Shema based on their view regarding the mitzvah of Chanukah:

Regarding the mitzvah of Chanukah, one lights each night a different number of lights.

And therefore,

from the statement of Beis Shammai that "on the first day one lights eight, from then on decreasing",

one does not yet see so much that they reckon <b>only</b> with the "potential"⁴⁰

— because one can say,

that what in the last four days one lights the smaller number <b>only</b> "corresponding to the days that are entering" — although "in actuality" there have already passed <b>more</b> days — is in order to make a distinction*⁴⁰

between the number of lights that one lights in the last four days from the number of lights that in the first four days;

But from the fact that also by the time of Kriyas Shema R. Eliezer holds that after the first watch — when there is only the actual lying down,

one can no longer recite Kriyas Shema,

one sees the view of Beis Shammai clearly — that one reckons only with the “potential” even when there are no side reasons why one should not reckon with the “actual.”

But on the other hand,

from the opinion of R. Eliezer by the time of Kriyas Shema one cannot know the view of Beis Shammai regarding the mitzvah of Chanukah.

Because⁴¹

by the time of Kriyas Shema the interpretation of the word “ובשכבך” which is written in the <b>Torah</b> is relevant,

and R. Eliezer holds that this Torah-word means “potential”,

“<b>they occupy themselves</b> with night and with lying down.”

And since “the language of the Torah is a language unto itself, language etc.’”,

therefore from this there is no proof that also <b>not</b> in connection to “the language of the Torah” is “we go

(only)

after the potential.”

· ט.

Thus the dispute of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel — whether the main thing is the “potential” or the “actual” — is also found regarding the entirety of creation: “Beis Shammai says the heavens were created first and afterwards the earth was created ..

and Beis Hillel says the earth was created first and afterwards the heavens”⁴³.

One explains in this⁴⁴,

that in the actual coming into being,

“the heavens were created first”.

Because since the coming into being of the worlds is in the manner of a chain of descent from above to below,

the heavens were created first and <b>from</b> <b>them</b> the earth was created

(just as <b>after</b> their creation the earth receives from the heavens⁴⁵)

And in thought and intention,

the earth was elevated "in thought first" <b>before</b> heaven

because "the end of action is in thought first"⁴⁶

; and as is known the example that when building a building, the reason and cause of the entire building is — because he wants the building as it is a finished one].

It is, however, not understood:

According to the above, it thus turns out,

that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel speak about two separate subjects: Beis Shammai speak about the actual coming into being,

and Beis Hillel — about the intention and thought.

But the expression "Beis Shammai say and Beis Hillel say" indicates a dispute.

So in what does their disagreement consist⁴⁷?

One must therefore say,

that the dispute of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel is —

Whoever is "&lt;b&gt;first&lt;/b&gt;" first &lt;b&gt;in level&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;and importance&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

: heaven or earth; and that which is stated in Chassidus

(as above)

that "heaven was created first" speaks about the actual coming into being and "earth was created first" speaks about thought and intention — these are &lt;b&gt;reasons&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

according to their approaches, who is prior in level and importance:

B"H they hold,

that since earth arose "in thought first" and in it is the essential intention,

therefore specifically it is the "first" in level and importance&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

And Beit Shammai hold,

that since in actuality the heavens were created earlier and <b>from them</b> the earth was created

the purpose of creation which is found in the earth⁵¹,

exist earlier in "heavens",

and <b>from there</b> they were drawn into the earth⁵²],

it means then that the "potential" of "earth"

(which arose in thought initially)

is found in "heavens",

therefore the heavens are the "beginning" in level and importance — because Beit Shammai follow their own reasoning,

that the main superiority is in the "potential"⁵³.

10.

The novelty in the opinion of Beis Shammai that "heavens were created first" because of that which heavens are the "potential" — according to their opinion "we follow the potential" in all other places:

Among created beings,

<b>must</b> first be the "potential",

and specifically from it

(and after it)

can the "actual" come forth.

Not so regarding the creation of heaven and earth which the Most High created,

it is understood,

that since the Most High is not defined, heaven forbid, in any boundaries,

He can create the "actual" also <b>before</b> the "potential"

(or entirely without a "potential").

Therefore, one cannot learn the opinion of Beit Shammai regarding the creation of heaven and earth.

From their approach that "we follow the potential" in other places — because one can say,

that the advantage of "potential" is — because without it the "actual" cannot exist,

but not in creation by the Holy One, blessed be He.

Therefore, the opinion of Beit Shammai must also stand regarding the creation of heaven and earth⁵⁴,

that even in the works of the Holy One, blessed be He,

where the "actual" could have been without the "potential",

but since in actuality the Most High created the earth in such a way that it derives from what previously existed "potentially" in heaven,

so also in this case "we follow the potential".

But nevertheless, the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel must also stand in other places — in order to make heard the opinion of Beit Hillel⁵⁵,

that even by created beings where one must arrive at the "potential",

also here they hold that "we follow the actual".

11.

One must still understand the reason of B"Sh that "the heavens were created first":

From this itself, that after the creation of the heavens the earth was created — although in "heavens" the earth already exists "potentially" — it is thus proven,

that the intention is in the earth as it is in actuality,

and specifically that

(the "actuality" of earth)

arose in thought first.

Now how can one say that the main excellence is in the heavens and that they are "first" in excellence and importance?

About this is also the question regarding the entirety of the approach of Beit Shammai that "we follow the potential": the advantage of "potential" is indeed seemingly,

only that which can come out of it an "actual".

(For the meaning of the word "potential" is — that it can produce an actual).

So how can one say that the main advantage is in the "potential"

(For in several laws one considers only the "potential" and <b>not</b> the "actual"⁵⁶)

— while the importance and the advantage of "potential" is,

that which it can bring forth the "actual"?

12.

One will understand it in the context of the connection of the two approaches — "we follow the potential" or "we follow the actual" — to the matter of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel⁵⁷

Beis Shammai is the root of gevuros,

and Beis Hillel is the root of chasadim⁵⁸

(which is why Beis Shammai is stringent and Beis Hillel is lenient⁵⁹).

And since gevurah is the aspect of "concealment" and chesed is "revelation",

therefore Beis Shammai holds that the main thing is the "in potential" and Beis Hillel holds that the main thing is the "in actuality" — because potential its essence is concealment and actuality — revelation.

And this is also the explanation of the dispute of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel whether "the heavens were created first" or "the earth was created first":

In order that the purpose of creation be carried out,

there must be both "heaven" and "earth"; the difference, however, is

that from the aspect of Gevurah — the root of Beis Shammai — since its essence is "concealment" and "elevation from below to above",

it follows that the ultimate purpose in the creation of "lower"

(earth)

is — that it should draw itself and ascend to the "upper"

(heaven).

Therefore Beis Shammai say "heaven was created first"⁶⁰

; however, from the aspect of Chessed — the root of Beis Hillel — since its essence is "revelation" and "drawing down from above to below",

it follows that the intention is in the "lower" itself,

and also the ultimate purpose of the "upper" is — that it should be drawn down and revealed <b>below</b>.

Therefore Beis Hillel say "earth was created first".

And the dispute of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding the creation of heaven and earth,

is the foundation to their dispute in all the laws of the Torah,

whether we follow the power or the action:

According to the method of Beis Hillel that the purpose is the "mateh",

it turns out that the main superiority is in the "bepoal",

and the meaning of the "bekoach" is — that which from it comes out the bepoal;

But according to the method of Beis Shammai that the purpose of the superiority consists in "shamayim",

and the task of "aretz" is — to draw itself and ascend to "shamayim",

it follows to say that the "koach" is not a means to the "poal",

but on the contrary: the main superiority is in the koach itself,

and the "poal" is only the "even habochen" through which the "bekoach" becomes revealed and verified⁶¹.

13.

According to all the above, one will understand the reason of Beit Shammai to say "When Israel went out of Egypt" immediately after the eating of the Paschal lamb

(even before midnight)

The Exodus from Egypt was in the merit of the blood of the Paschal lamb⁶².

And since the "reward of the commandment" is <b>caused</b> from the commandment⁶³

and consequently also included in it

(as with every cause and effect where the "effect" is included "potentially" in its "cause"),

it is understandable,

that at the time of the eating of the Paschal lamb

which "came from its beginning <b>only</b> for eating"⁶⁴]

— there already occurs <b>potentially</b> and <b>latently</b> the matter of the Exodus from Egypt⁶⁵.

Therefore Beit Shammai say that immediately after eating the Pesach offering one says "When Israel went out of Egypt" — because already then there is the Exodus from Egypt "in potential",

and they go according to their approach that "we follow the potential"⁶⁶.

13.

It is written "As in the days of your going out of the land of Egypt I will show him wonders"⁶⁷.

So just as regarding the Exodus from Egypt Beit Hillel hold

until that "Beit Shammai in the place of Beit Hillel is not a teaching"⁶⁹]

that "we follow the actual",

and regarding the Exodus from Egypt <b>in potential</b> one <b>cannot</b> say "Hallel";

So it is also regarding the "I will show wonders" of the future redemption,

that Jews cannot content themselves with the redemption that is in potential and in spirituality⁷⁰,

rather they demand from the Above

(and they will certainly carry it out and very soon literally)

the redemption in actuality and in physicality — "Until when is the end of wonders"⁷¹

All the ends have passed,

it is already a long time that one should go out from exile simply physically,

and — "With our youths and with our elders, with our sons and with our daughters^"72

until that "not a hoof shall remain"⁷³,

and in a manner of "everlasting joy upon their heads"⁷⁴,

It should already <b>in actuality</b> be fulfilled the promise⁷⁵

"For God will save Zion and build the cities of Judah and they will dwell there and possess it, and the seed of His servants will inherit it, and those who love His name will dwell in it"⁷⁶,

speedily in our days.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Acharei Mos and Shabbos Parshas Kedoshim 5727)