English translation — ויקרא ג

A.

Parshat Vayikra is read in several years on the Shabbat that is in proximity to Purim.

From this it is understandable¹,

that in Parshat Vayikra are hinted the matters and the greatness of Purim.

In what consists the matter and the greatness of Purim?

One of the obligations of Purim

is — “a person is obligated²

to become intoxicated on Purim until he does not know between ‘cursed is Haman’ and ‘blessed is Mordechai’”³.

Since the obligation to become intoxicated etc. is distinguished from the other obligations on Purim,

by that

(a)

it is the <b>only</b> obligation that is <b>above</b> measure — “until <b>not</b> knowing”.

(b)

the aspect of “to become intoxicated” in a manner above measure is “

(until not knowing)

between <b>cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai</b>”

(when he is “not knowing” about other matters,

it is not an aspect,

and he thereby does not fulfill the obligation “to become intoxicated”),

from this it is understandable,

that the obligation of "drinking" points to the inner content of Purim and to the unique content of Purim

(in which it distinguishes itself &lt;b&gt;completely&lt;/b&gt; &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;

from other festivals,

holidays and the like).

B.

One can further say about this:

The obligation of "to drink etc." is the "days of feasting and joy" that stands in the Scroll of Esther&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;.

D.

H.

That the "to drink etc." is a law in the manner of the feast&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;.

And one may say,

that the commandment of feasting and joy is distinguished from all the other commandments that the sages instituted in the days of Purim,

in that the obligation to fulfill this commandment exists the entire day of Purim — in every moment and instant thereof*&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;,

unlike it is with the other commandments of the day of Purim.

For example,

the commandment of reading the Megillah,

is when one reads the Megillah of Purim once at night and once by day,

he has thereby fulfilled the commandment entirely&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;,

even the commandment of gifts to the poor,

which it is a commandment to increase in them&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

is it however not an <b>obligation</b> for <b>all</b> <b>the day</b>.

But not so "feasting and joy" because it says "days of feasting and joy" — "feasting and joy" adjacent to the word "days"

(not like "and sending portions etc. and gifts to the poor" which stand afterwards)

— it may be said,

that the obligation is for every moment of "days",

only through his fulfilling the commandment once by day — it becomes drawn&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

upon every moment and instant of the entire day&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;.

And since the obligation of the “feast” — “to become intoxicated” — is,

that it should be in a manner of “until he does not know between ‘cursed is Haman’ and ‘blessed is Mordechai’” — it means then that the obligation of “to become intoxicated etc. until he does not know etc.” is for the entire day.

Also from this it is understood

(in addition to the above section 1),

that in the commandment “to become intoxicated etc. until he does not know between ‘cursed is Haman’ and ‘blessed is Mordechai’” — is expressed the content of Purim,

more than in the other commandments of the day.

3.

How is it possible that the Torah should obligate a Jew that he should be so much intoxicated until he should not know "between cursed Haman and blessed Mordechai"?

Commentators say,

that this means "that he should not know to think that cursed Haman in gematria equals blessed Mordechai".

But it is not understood:

A)

The measure of being intoxicated "that he cannot think" is surely not relevant specifically to the gematria of "Cursed is Haman" and "Blessed is Mordechai"; when one is intoxicated,

he is surely not at all capable of calculating any <b>any</b> gematria — even a much simpler one than "Cursed is Haman" and "Blessed is Mordechai"¹².

Now why does the Gemara say³

"until he does not know between <b>Cursed is Haman</b> and <b>Blessed is Mordechai</b>"?

B)

Gematrias that are found in the Torah are surely not by mere chance, heaven forbid,

rather the gematria shows that the two things which correspond to the same number have a connection between them

(<b>a similarity</b>)

inwardly¹³.

And as is understood from what is explained in Tanya¹⁴,

that the creations that are called by a name that is the gematria of certain words that stand in the Ten Utterances,

it is because of this that the divine life-force of those creations becomes channeled from the corresponding words in the Ten Utterances.

And consequently it is understandable,

that there is also an inner similarity between various things whose names correspond to the same number.

Is therefore according to this not understood: What is the similarity between "Cursed is Haman" and "Blessed is Mordechai" which are indeed two opposite things?

The explanation in this is: The life-force of every thing is the supernal intention for which the thing was created.

And since the intention in the coming-into-being of "Cursed is Haman" is,

that there should come the "and it was reversed",

that Jews through their service should reverse it to "Blessed is Mordechai"

(as is the intention in the coming-into-being of all matters of evil — that one should make from them "day and light"¹⁵),

it therefore turns out,

that the G-dly life-force

(the intention)

of "Cursed is Haman" <b>is</b> — "Blessed is Mordechai"¹⁶.

And this is the inner explanation of "until one does not know between cursed Haman and blessed Mordechai": transforming from "cursed Haman" to "blessed Mordechai" until "one does not know between cursed Haman and blessed Mordechai" — there is no difference seen between them¹⁷,

because also from "cursed Haman" has become "blessed Mordechai".

In greater depth: that he sees the "cursed Haman" he sees immediately

(and moreover — only that he sees *¹⁷

the intention within it — "blessed Mordechai"¹⁸.

4.

One must, however, understand: when one transforms "cursed be Haman" into "blessed be Mordechai",

then indeed there is <b>no</b> difference between them — so why does it say "until one does not know between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordechai" from which it is evident that between them there is a difference only from the fact that he is intoxicated he does not know the difference?

It will be understood by prefacing the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory¹⁹

"Great is repentance that intentional sins become for him like merits",

that through repentance

(out of love)

also the holy sparks that are found in the intentional sins²⁰

— become transformed into merits.

What constitutes the superiority of baalei teshuvah over tzaddikim — and how the ruling "In the place where baalei teshuvah stand, even completely righteous tzaddikim cannot stand" &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

— that tzaddikim only clarify the sparks that are in permissible things, whose vitality is from kelipas nogah,

but the sparks that have fallen into forbidden things, which are from the three completely impure kelipos — cannot be clarified through Torah

(And on the contrary,

through Torah one must push them away&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;)

; but baalei teshuvah,

clarify also the sparks that have fallen into the three completely impure kelipos

(Even the sparks that have fallen into "willful sins" — which are even lower than forbidden things,

for willful sins are indeed &lt;b&gt;contrary&lt;/b&gt; to His will, may He be blessed&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;),

so that even they become transformed into merits&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;.

5.

The reason that teshuvah has the power to clarify even the sparks of "willful sins" — although they are contrary to His will, may He be blessed — is because teshuvah reaches into Atzmus,

"the Master of the will"&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;,

Who is, heaven forbid, not compelled and is not captured in the will&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

From the aspect of His essence, it is indeed "I do not know in which of them He desires, etc."²⁷,

only He chose

(with free choice)

to be "He desires the deeds of the righteous" and "He does not desire the deeds of the wicked" — it is therefore not applicable that the "intentional sins" should have a place of grasp regarding Him and should have the power to conceal the holy sparks that are in them²⁸.

And the aspect of the "Master of Will" which is not grasped in the will of Torah and mitzvos is drawn down specifically through the service of repentance: the righteous,

even those who have attained the level of servants of God with great love in delights,

since they have delight in their service,

they are indeed a "yesh who loves"²⁹

a "&lt;b&gt;reality&lt;/b&gt; of holiness" — and therefore they draw down only the aspect of will.

But the penitents,

since their service is in a movement of "self-nullification",

that they are not satisfied with their state and tear themselves out of it — "I am forbidden from here"³⁰,

they therefore draw down the Master of Will³¹.

And this is the explanation of "until one does not know between cursed Haman and blessed Mordechai"&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

: This power to be able to transform from "cursed Haman" to "blessed Mordechai",

comes only through the service of "does not know",

the aspect of self-nullification that is above reason and knowledge,

that specifically this — attains the aspect of "&lt;b&gt;I do not know&lt;/b&gt; which of them He desires etc.'",

and from &lt;b&gt;there&lt;/b&gt; is drawn the power to overturn "cursed Haman" &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

into "blessed Mordechai" &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;.

6.

This aforementioned matter of "until one does not know etc.'",

is hinted at in the two extremes of the beginning and end of Parshat Vayikra:

At the beginning of the section it speaks about a very high level.

As Rashi says on "And He called to Moses": "To every utterance and to every speech and to every commandment a calling preceded, an expression of affection."

What is such a calling&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

It turns out,

That the explanation of "preceded" is — not only precedence in time,

But also precedence in level.

I.

e.

That the calling "an expression of affection" is

(also)

A matter in itself&lt;sup&gt;36 &lt;/sup&gt;

And is higher than the utterances,

Speeches and commandments of the Torah *&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;.

And also understood from that which it says "And He called" simply and not "And He called &lt;b&gt;the Lo&lt;/b&gt;rd" — not as by utterance,

Speech and commandment where it says "And the &lt;b&gt;Lo&lt;/b&gt;rd spoke",

"And &lt;b&gt;the Lo&lt;/b&gt;rd said" a.

I.

e.

— Because the calling of affection came from the Most High Himself,

As He is higher even than the name of the Lord &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

Which is not hinted at by any letter etc.*&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;.

— But at the end of the section &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

It speaks entirely about "A soul that sins"; and not an unintentional sin

(As in several of the preceding matters in the section),

Rather an intentional sin; and about what kind of sin it speaks here — "And commits a trespass &lt;b&gt;against the Lo&lt;/b&gt;rd",

A falsification G-d forbid and may it not be in &lt;b&gt;the&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;Most High&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

; And in addition — "And swears falsely".

Until that also the last words of the section are "&lt;b&gt;to be guilty&lt;/b&gt; thereby".

It is indeed not understood: the name of a parshah is indeed not only after its beginning ⁴⁰,

but it also indicates the content of the entire parshah — also of the last words⁴¹.

And on the contrary: from the aspect that "their beginning is interwoven in their end and their end in their beginning"⁴²

the conclusion of the parshah has a <b>special</b> connection to the beginning of the parshah — "Vayikra" an expression of affection,

so how does it happen that the very last words of parshas <b>Vayikra</b>

(an expression of <b>affection</b>),

with which the parshah is concluded,

are "<b>for guilt</b> in it"?

7.

It will be understood by prefacing the continuation of Rashi:

After Rashi explains that "Vayikra" is an expression of affection,

and the calling preceded all speeches and all sayings and all commandments,

he continues: "But to the prophets of the nations of the world He revealed Himself to them in a language of transience and impurity, etc."

It is not understood in this: How can there possibly be a presumption that the Almighty should show such great affection to the prophets of the nations of the world — an affection that is even higher than Torah even — that in order to negate this presumption Rashi needs to explain and say that to them <b>not</b> was <b>the</b> calling?

The explanation in this is,

that this proves the point: If the calling were on the same level as Torah,

then it would be simply understandable that this has no connection to the nations of the world,

for it is indeed "and statutes <b>not</b> they knew"⁴³,

until that a gentile who engages in Torah is liable to death⁴⁴.

However, since the calling is prior to all utterances etc.

(and it comes from a place that is higher than the name Havayah⁴⁵,

as above section 6),

one could say — that since from the aspect of His essence, blessed be He, "I do not know in which of them He delights",

perhaps the calling is also to the prophets of the nations of the world.

Therefore Rashi comes to warn,

that to the prophets of the nations of the world not only was there not the calling as an expression of endearment,

but on the contrary: "He revealed Himself to them in a language of temporariness and impurity etc."

And the reason for this is,

because even in the level where "brother Esau to Jacob" — both seemingly equal,

it is — "and I loved Jacob and Esau I hated"⁴⁶.

And this is also the explanation for the connection of the beginning of the series to its conclusion,

that "their beginning is embedded in their end and their end in their beginning": specifically "to bring guilt upon her" — these intentional sins that become transformed into merits through "and he shall atone etc. and it shall be forgiven",

that the true atonement and forgiveness is at the time when the intentional sins are turned into merits — this is the conclusion and seal of "Vayikra as an expression of endearment"; through this is expressed the true endearment of the Most High to Jews,

which is prior to the Torah, that from the aspect of the endearment — even when a Jew transgresses the commandments of the Torah and does the deed of Esau, may the Merciful One protect us,

even then "and I loved Jacob" that is in the Jew,

and the Most High atones and forgives him for his guilt-offerings,

until the intentional sins become transformed into merits.

8.

The common point — the transformation of darkness into light — that is in Parshat Vayikra and Purim,

is hinted especially in the verse⁴⁷

"And do not omit the salt of the covenant of your G-d etc." from Parshat Vayikra:

It is explained in Likkutei Torah⁴⁸

on the verse,

that "salt" is called "covenant of your G-d" because in the name Elokim there are 120 combinations,

from which the 120 combinations of nogah are nourished.

From these two times 120 combinations

(from the name Elokim and from nogah)

comes "mar",

which amounts to two times 120 — "and the calculation of Amalek".

And therefore salt is called "covenant of your G-d",

and the salt sweetens the judgments and bitterness

("mar")

that comes from the name Elokim.

9.

According to the above, one will also understand a wonder that is in this mentioned maamar in Likkutei Torah in an earlier section⁴⁹

: In the maamar it states that Torah is His wisdom, blessed be He, "in which is clothed the light of the Ein Sof, blessed be He, literally,"

and on this the Tzemach Tzedek adds in Chiddushei Torah: "And therefore the Torah is called the parable of the Ancient One, which is the aspect of Chochmah Elyonah, which is a vessel for the Ein Sof, blessed be He, the Ancient One of the world,

as is written about this in the discourse of Purim."

In this it is not understood:

a)

A "parable" includes a thing and its opposite: on one side it is a <b>vessel</b> for the moral,

and the moral is <b>clothed</b> in it; and on the other side,

it is <b>not</b> the moral,

and even more: it even <b>conceals</b> the moral.

And as the language in Torah Or

(in the "Discourse of Purim" which the Tzemach Tzedek references,

as above⁵⁰)

"that it is not from the essence of the moral at all"⁵¹,

"that it conceals the moral"⁵².

One must understand: in the discourse in Likkutei Torah he speaks of the <b>advantage</b> of Torah "in which is clothed the light of the Ein Sof, blessed be He, literally" — so what is added by bringing that Torah is called "<b>the primordial parable</b>" and on the contrary — this even indicates that as a parable it <b>conceals</b> the moral — "the Primordial One of the world"?

b)

When one references a certain discourse,

the way is

(also by the Tzemach Tzedek)

to call the discourse by its beginning.

So here too it should have said "as it is written in the discourse beginning 'A person is obligated to gladden'."

Why does it say "in the Discourse of Purim"?

The explanation in this is: the Tzemach Tzedek with his bringing here that Torah is called "Mashal HaKadmoni" and with his pointing to the "Drush Purim",

he hints to a matter that pertains to the matter of "It'hapcha Chashucha L'nehora" — which is the content of the maamar "V'lo Tashbis Melach".

10.

As mentioned above,

a mashal conceals the nimshal.

And in a certain detail its concealment is even greater than the concealment of a "riddle"

(riddle)

about the thing that is understood through it.

For since the riddle by itself — without the matter that it hints at,

has no intellectual content and thought,

or — it is even contrary to intellect,

and like Samson's riddle "mei'etz yatza matok" etc.⁵³

— this itself gives to understand that the riddle points to a certain matter that is hidden in it.

By a mashal, however, even without the nimshal there is in the mashal a certain content,

and therefore it can be depicted,

that hearing the mashal one should not grasp at all that it carries within itself a nimshal⁵⁴.

(Sometimes indeed it is said,

that a parable conceals the moral less than a riddle conceals the subject of the riddle.

This, however, was said when one already has the knowledge that the parable contains within itself a moral,

then it is already much easier through the parable to arrive at the moral than through a riddle.

It is, however, correct,

that one should sometimes assume,

that in the parable itself consists the entire content of the matter and not know at all that it possesses a moral — and from <b>that</b> perspective the parable is more concealing than the riddle).

And it can be said that this is what the Tzemach Tzedek means with his writing there "And therefore the Torah is called <b>the parable</b> of the Ancient One..

that it is a <b>vessel</b> for the Ein Sof light, blessed be He, etc.",

that also the concealment of the parable must be transformed so that it becomes a <b>vessel</b>.

And therefore he also points to "the discourse of <b>Purim</b>"⁵⁵,

in order to hint to the matter of "Purim" whose main content is

(as above section 3 and 5),

to transform

(from "cursed is Haman" to "blessed is Mordechai").

Yes.

As discussed earlier

(section 3 and onward)

there are in this obligation "to become intoxicated on Purim until one does not know between 'cursed is Haman' and 'blessed is Mordechai'"

(section 2)

he is in every moment of Purim and in him is expressed the main content of Purim],

there are two details: the transformation of "cursed is Haman" to "blessed is Mordechai": and the service of "does not know"

(self-nullification above intellect)

which gives the power for the "transformation".

And since &lt;b&gt;both&lt;/b&gt; matters express the essential concept of Purim,

it is understood,

that by his alluding to the matter of "Purim"

(through the reference to "Drush Purim")

the Tzemach Tzedek also means the matter of "lo yada".

At the beginning and start of the section of this maamar in Likkutei Torah

(where the Tzemach Tzedek inserts his gloss regarding "Mashal HaKadmoni"),

it discusses the matter of mesiras nefesh,

that this derives from "atzmiyus hanefesh shelemalah min haseichel".

Therefore it can be said,

that this gloss is related

(not only to the words before and adjacent to it — that in Torah is "clothed Ohr Ein Sof Baruch Hu mamash",

but)

also to the beginning of the section,

which discusses the matter of mesiras nefesh.

— because the two matters,

mesiras nefesh and "Mashal HaKadmoni",

are related to each other: the matter of mesiras nefesh which comes from "the essence of the soul that is above intellect,

which is nullified to the essence of the Ein Sof blessed be He, which is also above and beyond wisdom" — the aspect of "lo yada" in man,

which is connected with the aspect that there is "I do not know in which of them He desires" — this gives the power and expresses itself in the service of "Mashal HaKadmoni" — making from the "Mashal" a "kli" for Kadmon.

And this is also what the Tzemach Tzedek hints with his note to "Drush Purim" thereby alluding to both matters of Purim: the service of transforming "Arur Haman" into "Baruch Mordechai",

and also the empowerment for this — the service of "lo yada" which is explained at the beginning of the section.

12.

And here too one sees

(as one sees it in many places)

that all matters of Chassidus,

even those that come ostensibly only incidentally — they are with utmost precision and in them are hinted wondrous matters,

And even the verses

(or statements of our Sages of blessed memory)

with which the maamarim begin,

and also the &lt;b&gt;sedrot&lt;/b&gt;

(when the maamarim were said or where they were placed into the books of Chassidus),

have an inner connection to the matters that are discussed in the maamarim&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;.

As one sees it in the matter of "the ancient parable" — that it is related to the matter of "and you shall not omit salt"

(with which the maamar begins),

and to Parshat Vayikra

(where the maamar is printed)

in general.

What

(as mentioned above)

"salt" and "Vayikra" indicate the matter of "the transformation of darkness to light" which comes from the side of the service that is above reason and intellect.

And this teaches us about how far one must be devoted and how much one must delve when learning the Torah and words of our Rabbis, our leaders,

also matters which appear that they are brought apparently only incidentally,

And as our Sages of blessed memory say on the verse⁵⁷

For it is not an empty thing from you — for it is not an empty thing,

And if empty — from you it is, why? Because you are not laboring in Torah

Also these matters are with great precision — they possess a rich content and they hint at wondrous matters.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Vayikra 5725)