English translation — שיחת ש"פ וישב, כ"ף כסלו ה'תשד"מ.

Besides the fact that it is Shabbos,

this is also the 20th of Kislev.

Shabbos itself is a time of gathering together — as emphasized in that on the day of Shabbos, even those who during the week cannot be believed regarding demai¹ and the like are believed.

Consequently, it turns out that on the day of Shabbos there is a unity of all Jews together. And analogous to what is stated regarding Yerushalayim — that those whom one does not ordinarily believe regarding matters of sanctity,

in Yerushalayim one does believe them,

because "Yerushalayim built up, like a city that is joined together — a city that makes all of Yisrael companions."²

And in general, Shabbos is a day of rest,

and rest is the opposite of the entire concept of war,

jealousy and competition,

which are the primary matters that lead to the opposite of unity and peace. As the Rambam writes at the end of Hilchos Melachim regarding the days of Moshiach,

that then there will be "no war, nor jealousy and competition, etc.,"

because then there will be perfection of unity and peace.

Thus we see that the day of Shabbos is connected with peace and unity among all Jews.

And although regarding hospitality

(which is indeed an expression of peace and unity and a gathering),

its primary concept and obligation is on Yom Tov³ and not so on Shabbos — this is not to imply that there is a deficiency in Shabbos, G-d forbid.

Rather,⁴ the explanation of this matter is,

that on the contrary:

Due to the greatness of the day of Shabbos, one does not need to resort to hospitality in its simple sense,

because the day of Shabbos itself accomplishes the matter of hospitality

(whereas on Yom Tov one must resort to hospitality in its simple sense).

Analogous to what is explained⁴ regarding the shofar on Rosh Hashanah,

that when Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos, in the Temple they would sound the shofar, but not in the rest of the country,⁵ because then one does not need to resort to it,

since Shabbos itself accomplishes it.

This is also connected with the fact that in honor of the festival of redemption of Yud-Tes Kislev, guests came here,

who had undergone travel difficulties, etc.,

in order to celebrate the days of redemption within the four cubits of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, and to go to the Ohel, etc.

And the greatness of the matter of hospitality is known,

especially when connected with actual physical hospitality,

as our Sages, of blessed memory, said:⁶ "Hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence,"

as we learn this from Avraham Avinu,

that at the time he saw "and behold, three men were standing over him,"⁷

he said to the Almighty⁸ "If now I have found favor in Your eyes, please do not pass by, etc.,"

"and He left and he went to receive the guests."⁹

With Avraham Avinu, the hospitality was through actual physical hospitality in its simple sense,

"and they ate,"

as is explicit in the simple meaning of the verses

[Our Sages, of blessed memory,¹⁰ indeed say that this hospitality was also connected with the fact that at the end of the meal he told the guests to bless,

"Bless the One Who spoke and the world came into being,"

but in the simple sense, this was connected with "and they ate" in its simple sense].

And to such an extent is the greatness of the matter of hospitality,

that in order for Avraham Avinu to fulfill it,

the angels ate and drank,¹¹

even though angels do not eat and do not drink,

because "when you go to a city, follow its customs."¹²

From this it is understood also regarding the present hospitality of those who came here for Yud-Tes Kislev,

that in addition to the very matter of their coming here,

they also benefited the host with a matter that is even greater than receiving the Divine Presence.

The explanation of the superiority in "Hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence":

Receiving the Divine Presence itself is a most exalted matter,

as is simple to understand,

and especially because on the three pilgrimage festivals there was "every male shall see the face of the Master, Hashem,"¹³

(as discussed on Yud-Tes Kislev in connection with the verse¹⁴ "But the righteous will give thanks to Your name; the upright will dwell in Your presence"),

the revelation of the Divine Presence. And nevertheless, it is said that "Hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence":

This is not merely like receiving the Divine Presence,

but greater than it.

With the proof from Avraham Avinu,

who said to the Most High "If now I have found favor in Your eyes, please do not pass away from Your servant",

"and he left and went to receive the guests":

Since Avraham Avinu "left and went to receive the guests",

he abandoned receiving the Divine Presence and went to receive the guests,

it is a proof that hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence,

because if not, Avraham would not have done it.

Hereby one sees a wondrous thing — a stark question

(and as discussed many times, that on simple matters one does not dwell):

From the proof of Avraham Avinu

(that "he left and went to receive the guests")

it is understood that he could not have had both things together — receiving the Divine Presence and hospitality — because if yes,

then there is no proof that "hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence". This is not understood:

Since "the Patriarchs, they are the Chariot"¹⁵,

and as explained in Tanya¹⁶ that "all their limbs were holy and separated from matters of this world and were a Chariot only to the Supernal Will all their days" — how can it be said that he abandoned receiving the Divine Presence and went to be hospitable — could the Divine Presence not have gone along with him,

so that he would have both things together,

receiving the Divine Presence and hospitality?!

Regarding the lesson for every Jew, it is understood how it is possible that when it comes to hospitality one must leave even receiving the Divine Presence — because when a person occupies himself with hospitality,

he must think about the guests,

and according to the law

(as the Alter Rebbe also brings down in his Shulchan Aruch¹⁷)

a person cannot think two thoughts at once;

But regarding Avraham Avinu, who is the Chariot all his days,

even when he is being hospitable,

his hand etc. is a Chariot to Divinity in a revealed way — what does it mean that he left receiving the Divine Presence to be hospitable?!

The explanation of this is:

According to the level of receiving the Divine Presence that could be with Avraham Avinu — it constitutes a departure

("he left")

when he goes to be hospitable. And nevertheless Avraham did it — from this we learn regarding every person according to his level,

that according to his level of receiving the Divine Presence, "hospitality is greater" than it.

And also in hospitality there are many levels. As we see by Avraham Avinu himself:

The Gemara explains that the things which Avraham himself did for his guests,

the Most High Himself paid reward to the children of Avraham,

and the things which Avraham did through an agent,

the Most High paid through an agent.

And likewise we see that there is hospitality by giving plain foods,

and then a higher level — by giving "three tongues with mustard". From this we see that there are levels in hospitality with the same person and with the same guests and in the same situation.

All the more so that there are different levels in hospitality with different people etc.

The matter of receiving the Divine Presence and "hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence" — is also specifically connected to Yud-Tes Kislev:

The redemption of Yud-Tes Kislev is connected with the revelation of the inner dimension of the Torah,

"Your springs will spread forth outward"¹⁸,

in a manner of "they will be sustained from it"¹⁹ — Chabad Chassidus.

And the revelation of the inner dimension of the Torah is indeed the revelation of Divinity — the revelation

(and receiving)

of the Divine Presence. And as explained in the letter of the Rebbe

(the Maharash)

of blessed memory²⁰

(which his holiness my father-in-law, the Rebbe, brings in his maamar²¹,

which was reviewed on Yud-Tes Kislev²²),

that "Yud-Tes Kislev...

the festival which redeemed our soul in peace and the light and life of our soul was given to us...

to draw down the revelation of the light of the inner dimension of our holy Torah...

to draw down the life of the depth and inner dimension of the Torah of Hashem...

from the aspect of the inner dimension and essence of the Ein Sof, blessed be He, that it should shine in the inner dimension of our soul etc."

And specifically the revelation of the face of the Shechinah "which is so called because it dwells and is clothed within the worlds"²³ because the revelation of the inner dimension of the Torah

(which was opened on Yud-Tes Kislev)

is Chassidus Chabad — for according to the explanation, the matter of the inner dimension of the Torah is a "descent,"

because one takes the inner dimension of the Torah and applies it into human intellect,

so that it should be "they will be sustained from it." And specifically through the descent of the clothing of the inner dimension of the Torah in Chabad — the ascent becomes most elevated, for this reaches to the most supernal level,

as is known the principle that a descent is for the purpose of an ascent.

Based on this, it is understood how there is the great elevation of Chassidus Chabad.

At first glance:

Since the principle is specifically a descent for the purpose of an ascent,

where is the matter of descent in the study of Chassidus — we study Chassidus,

so is this not a descent?

According to the above, this is understood:

The very clothing of the inner dimension of the Torah in Chabad is a descent,

and consequently, this descent brings about a most elevated ascent.

The descent that exists in Chassidus Chabad is further understood through the parable of the Alter Rebbe²⁴ regarding the revelation of Chassidus:

Like a parable of a king whose son became unwell,

he orders to take the precious stone of the crown of his kingdom, upon which depends all the beauty of the "crown of the diadem that crowns,"

and to grind it and mix it with water and give it to the king's son to drink — perhaps a few drops of it will heal him.

From this it is understood,

that the revelation of Chassidus is connected with a descent — for the matter of grinding a precious stone is a descent:

By grinding something, one nullifies its existence. As this is also according to halachah regarding chametz

(to differentiate)

and the like,

that through grinding

("crumbles and scatters to the wind etc."²⁵)

the thing becomes nullified from existence

[And regarding this, there are many commandments that require a measure,

less than which — the thing loses its importance (like the example of chametz through grinding)].

So this is a descent.

And specifically through the descent comes the greatest ascent.

As the matter is in the entirety of Torah and commandments:

The intention is that Torah and commandments should be specifically down below in "earth"

[And therefore, commandments in general require a measure (and less than the measure loses importance),

as above — for at first glance, Torah and commandments are above measure — because the Most High gave Torah and commandments specifically down below on earth,

in measure and limitation²⁶]:

Regarding Torah — the descent is into understanding and comprehension of human intellect,

and specifically through the descent into "earth" comes the greatest ascent in Torah — that "it is longer than the measure of the earth etc."²⁷

This is further emphasized in commandments:

Commandments are connected specifically with clothing in physical matters and in measures etc.

And specifically the commandments

(which descend to the lowest level)

are the will of the Holy One, blessed be He,

a matter that is above all measurement and limitation, higher even than Torah which is the wisdom of the Holy One, blessed be He,

because commandments are connected with a greater descent than Torah.

And regarding this, it is also the same regarding Chassidus Chabad:

The inner dimension of the Torah becomes clothed specifically in Chabad,

human intellect. And this is a descent relative to the essence of the matter of the inner dimension of the Torah,

and through this descent comes a most elevated ascent.

Further:

The entirety of the matter of Chassidus is connected with "From my flesh I shall perceive G-d"²⁸,

and as the well-known teaching²⁹ "Know what is above"³⁰ — the knowledge of what happens above,

is — "from you." It does not say the phrase "from my soul

(or from my spirit,

or from my neshamah)

I shall perceive G-d,"

but rather "from my flesh I shall perceive G-d."

That is, that it is connected with a descent into physical "my flesh,"

and specifically through this comes "I shall perceive G-d,"

in a most elevated manner

(because a descent is for the purpose of an ascent).

And in the language of the Mitteler Rebbe³¹:

The simple created being takes the true being. And the content is also understood from what the Baal HaGeulah writes in his Igros Kodesh³² that the coming into being of physical existence is specifically from the Essence and Selfhood of the Emanator, blessed be He.

Which the Alter Rebbe wrote in his letter "in the days before his passing in the village of Poyena"³³,

and the rabbis, the sons of the author of the commentary, appended it and printed it in Igros Kodesh as Siman Kaf.

What is certain is that this is with Divine Providence. And in particular, since from the first time they compiled the Igros Kodesh, this letter was Siman Kaf.

(Regarding the later letters there were changes,

but this letter was always Siman Kaf³⁴].

And one can connect this

(that the letter is Siman Kaf,

and there it discusses the creation of physical existence specifically from His Essence — analogous to the general concept of Chassidus which is connected to "From my flesh I shall see God")

also with the fact that we see that the gathering of the holiday of redemption, Yud-Tes Kislev, was set — already from the first time in the time of the Alter Rebbe³⁵ — for the twentieth of Kislev³⁶.

What is certain is that this is precise. And just as regarding the number of Yud-Tes

(Kislev)

there are several explanations and allusions,

also from that date³⁷,

so too is it understood regarding the twentieth of Kislev.

From the above it is understood the superiority of the fact that it is the day of Shabbos — for Shabbos itself is a time of gathering together.

And especially when, in addition, it is also the twentieth of Kislev

(in the fixed calendar of the year)

— when it is customary to gather together each and every year in connection with the redemption of the Alter Rebbe.

And the twentieth of Kislev has within it an additional superiority relative to Shabbos,

because it is a matter of "once a year":

There are many Shabbosos in a year,

in contrast, the twentieth of Kislev is only once a year. And it is understood that the influence and empowerment on this day is not only for that single day,

and especially since this concerns "Yud-Tes Kislev when 'the light and vitality of our soul was given to us'",

one cannot say that "the light and vitality of our soul was given to us" only for this day, Heaven forbid,

rather, certainly the influence of Yud-Tes Kislev is drawn forth upon all the days of the year³⁸. Similar to Yom Kippur and other matters that are only once a year,

that their influence is drawn forth upon all the days of the year. As is said regarding the holiday of Pesach,

that the matter of "remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt" of the holiday of Pesach is drawn forth upon all the days of the year

(only on the holiday of Pesach it is with more emphasis).

For every day of the days of the year includes all the other days,

therefore, a thing that occurs on a special day,

and especially a general day like Yud-Tes Kislev — is drawn forth throughout all the days of the year.

And as is emphasized explicitly in that letter of the Rebbe, of blessed memory

(mentioned above),

that Yud-Tes Kislev is "the New Year for Chassidus",

and the influence that was drawn forth on this day is "in the manner of a general drawing forth upon the entirety of the year".

And in particular, since Yud-Tes Kislev is connected with "Your wellsprings shall spread forth outward",

which emphasizes that the wellsprings do not remain in their place,

rather they are drawn forth into the outside,

meaning that in the outside one has the wellsprings themselves,

and in a manner of "shall spread forth"³⁹.

Accordingly, it is understood regarding the "outside" in time — the time outside of Yud-Tes Kislev,

that certainly the wellsprings of Yud-Tes Kislev are drawn forth also upon all the days of the year outside of this time,

so that then too one has the wellsprings themselves,

and in a manner of "shall spread forth".

And in the fixed calendar of this year, when the twentieth of Kislev falls on the day of Shabbos — it is even more:

Yom Kippur is indeed "once a year",

but in each and every year there is a Yom Kippur.

In contrast, the fixed calendar that the twentieth of Kislev should fall on the day of Shabbos is not in every year,

consequently, it turns out that the influence of the twentieth of Kislev that occurs on Shabbos is drawn forth not only throughout all the days of this year,

but for several years.

Although the general custom of our Rebbes, our leaders, is that the gathering in connection with the holiday of redemption, Yud-Tes Kislev, was on

(the night of)

the twentieth of Kislev

(between Yud-Tes and the twentieth of Kislev — but in the fixed calendar like this year,

when Yud-Tes Kislev falls on Friday,

the custom of our Rebbes, our leaders, was (for understandable reasons) that they gathered beforehand — on the night of Yud-Tes Kislev.

Therefore,

when one is within the four cubits of the leader of our generation,

His Holiness, my father-in-law, the Rebbe,

there is no place for one to make a gathering this year

(when Yud-Tes Kislev is on Friday)

on the night of the twentieth of Kislev,

in a manner different from how he himself would conduct himself.

But regarding Chassidim — certainly there should have been a gathering on the night of the twentieth of Kislev. I had hoped that then they would gather,

at least those who are leaders,

all the more so those who need to be leaders and influencers,

a Rosh Yeshivah and the like.

Even someone who is called a mashpia in name should have made a farbrengen then. We are not even talking about one who is called a mashpia,

one who was "crowned" and appointed as a mashpia...

What actually happened? The night of the 20th of Kislev arrived — Friday night — people went home,

and they drank soup,

and before that — made Kiddush on aged wine and ate fish and all delicacies,

and afterwards — ate fatty meat, etc.,

just like every Shabbos — but that Friday night was the night of the 20th of Kislev when one must make a farbrengen — they did not make a farbrengen;

"Crown Heights" did not storm!

He indeed ate and went to sleep,

at least sleep in this regard,

and he did not "bother" anyone and no one "bothered" him — but they did not make a farbrengen!...

Oy — he argues — they did not come to his house and knock on his door that he should make a farbrengen — but the matter of a mashpia is not to wait until they come to him asking him to be a mashpia,

rather the Gemara⁴⁰ says that "more than the calf wants to suck,

the cow wants to nurse"! He must go and endeavor to be a mashpia to others!

Nevertheless...

last night they did not make a farbrengen!

He argues,

that he already fulfilled it with that there was already a farbrengen on the night of Yud-Tes Kislev,

and he troubled himself to sit through it for five hours:

at a farbrengen a significant part of the time is spent singing niggunim,

afterwards they spoke about the Seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach,

about "Who is a Jew",

about mivtzoim, etc. — matters that have absolutely no relevance to him. What does he have to do with gentiles,

with mivtzoim in the world? He lies in the heavens! At that same time he could have sat and learned or done other good things!

It is entirely beneath his dignity to occupy himself with the world,

and his dignity is not merely his own dignity,

rather this is the honor of the Torah — he is Torah,

therefore he must, so to speak, guard the honor of the Torah by guarding his own honor!

Nevertheless he was moser nefesh and sat at the farbrengen for five hours,

because he understands that this is part of chinuch — to come and bring his children to a farbrengen...

Regarding Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah — with whom there was the most sublime mesirus nefesh — it is written⁴⁰,

that "had they been flogged" and it had been prolonged for a period of time, they would not have withstood the test. And he sat through five hours at the farbrengen — mesirus nefesh like no other!

So since he was already moser nefesh at that farbrengen — what more does he need to do? He has already fulfilled it with that!

But what do all these calculations have to do with the fact that Friday night was the night of the 20th of Kislev?

— They should have made a farbrengen then...

And if the mashpia and the like did not come to make a farbrengen, they should have gone to the mashpia's house and knocked on his door and woken him from sleep so that he should sit and make a farbrengen. And if he does not open the door — break the windows...

Afterwards will come those who are like the angel Michael⁴¹ and plead merit,

that there were those who did make a farbrengen.

But the matter of a farbrengen is,

not that a few whispered among themselves that it is Yud-Tes Kislev,

rather they should know about it also in "chutzah"! And in practice,

if somewhere there was a farbrengen, it was with a "tumult"

(as they say in the vernacular),

and thus it did not reach all Jews in "Crown Heights",

and among them — also to me! All of "Crown Heights" — the part where Jews live

(not gentiles),

at least where Chassidim live — did not storm with it. And the intention of a farbrengen is — that it should be with the whole storm and tumult. That everyone should know about it,

and without responsibility that they would have let me know about it too!

Since this is a matter that pertains to the past — why are we talking about it now?

And in particular, when one is holding at the beginning of the farbrengen — it is better to speak about good things and in the merit of Yisrael. It is true that the rule is "we conclude with good"⁴²,

but it is also known the rule that "we begin with a blessing"

(as the sons of the gaon the author arranged that with this the Igros Kodesh of the Alter Rebbe should begin).

So why did they begin with "saying"

(as the expression is)

the world?

[— Certainly one does not intend thereby to touch anyone or cause sadness. And in general — on the day of Shabbos there is an explicit verse *⁴² that "no sadness shall be added with her," consequently if someone has sadness from this,

I am not guilty,

rather he — because on Shabbos there is no sadness!].

But it has become the "custom",

that if one does not explicitly protest a matter at a farbrengen,

it is assumed as if I agreed to that matter,

or even more — that I instructed that one should conduct oneself thus.

Therefore I must protest,

that what was not brought last night is not with my consent and not according to my command, G-d forbid,

so that it should not be interpreted in the opposite way — with the calculation:

Since the one who was supposed to farbreng is an honest Jew,

a chassid,

and he is fervent about the spreading of the wellsprings etc.,

how does it come to him that he should not farbreng on Yud-Tes Kislev?!

One cannot say that he obeyed his evil inclination,

because he has no evil inclination — regarding him it is "my heart is hollow within me"⁴³,

or even more⁴⁴ — "and You found his heart faithful before You"⁴⁵! If he obeyed another — one does not suspect him;

one must say that someone who is in his estimation

(in his eyes)

commanded him not to farbreng. And one cannot say that he was commanded in secret — because then he would have found a way to extricate himself from it and still farbreng. Rather, "certainly" he was commanded openly not to farbreng!

And since "a person is not suspected [of something] unless [that thing] etc."⁴⁶

(the matter exists in him)

— consequently I must explicitly protest and negate that one should suspect me in this:

G-d forbid that I should agree and all the more so instruct that one should not farbreng on Yud-Tes Kislev — while I myself am fervent and storm about farbrengens and unity and peace etc.!

(Missing).

So the question is,

"a person is not suspected [of something] unless etc." — the Almighty helps and there is another Gemara that warns about it:

"Whoever disqualifies — disqualifies with his own blemish"⁴⁷. And prefacing the explanation of this statement of our Sages and how it corresponds with "a person is not suspected of something unless etc.":

A person was created with virtues and deficiencies;

and the Almighty desires that a person should rectify his deficiencies. But there is a rule⁴⁸ that "a prisoner cannot free himself etc.",

consequently a person cannot rectify his own deficiencies without help from outside.

Another person must help him out to rectify his deficiencies. How is this done? To demand that the person himself come and tell other people that he has deficiencies — is contrary to human nature,

for a person loves himself.

Therefore the Almighty placed into human nature,

that when he has a deficiency and blemish he sees the same deficiency and blemish in others. And he goes around and disqualifies them with the claim that they have this blemish. He says that so-and-so has this blemish and another has this blemish and a third has this blemish etc.

— and with this he indicates that he himself has this blemish and therefore he disqualifies others with the same blemish — "whoever disqualifies disqualifies with his own blemish"!

From where does one actually know that he disqualifies another because he himself has the blemish,

and not that this is a true suspicion about the other,

and that other indeed has the deficiency,

— "a person is not suspected of something unless etc."?

This is the explanation in simple terms:

If he sees the flaw only in one person,

one could possibly say that this is a genuine suspicion and the other indeed has that blemish;

but if he goes around and disqualifies several others with the same blemish — one cannot say that so many people have that blemish — this is proof that his disqualifying others is not connected to "a person is not suspected etc.",

but rather it comes from "whoever disqualifies, disqualifies with his own blemish."

And through this he comes to correct the flaw and blemish that he himself has. Because while he disqualifies all these people,

each one of them says to him,

that what he disqualifies him for is because he himself has that flaw and "whoever disqualifies, disqualifies with his own blemish."

So at the moment when the other says it to him — he will certainly not admit to it,

because it is beneath his dignity;

but afterwards, when he finds himself alone,

he contemplates the truth and considers that if so many people have accused him of that flaw

(and that is why he goes around disqualifying others)

— perhaps there is indeed something to it...

And from this it can come about that he corrects the flaw.

In addition to the above reason why we now mention a matter from the past — that he did not spend the evening of the twentieth of Kislev

(so that it should not be interpreted that I agreed to it)

— there is another reason for this,

and it is the main one,

that this is relevant

(also)

for the future:

There is a principle that nothing is lost and one can always rectify

(as learned from the holy Rebbe, my father-in-law, the Rebbe, from Pesach Sheni⁴⁹).

And on the contrary — when something was lacking in the service of the past,

then afterwards there must come "double for the wise"⁵⁰.

This principle is stated even regarding holy things — the Paschal sacrifice:

Although regarding holy things,

sacrifices,

there is the principle that "its day passed, its sacrifice is void"⁵¹,

and one seemingly cannot complete it

(not like prayer, which one can complete⁵²)

— we see that when the Jews complained "why should we be diminished"⁵³,

the Almighty gave them "Pesach Sheni",

so that through it they could complete the offering of the Paschal sacrifice after its time had passed

(the fourteenth of Nissan).

Seemingly, the Almighty could have told the Jews that on Pesach Sheni they should only eat matzah

(maror is an accessory to the Paschal sacrifice⁵⁴,

therefore one cannot eat it without a sacrifice),

and not need to institute a matter that they could offer a Paschal sacrifice as a completion for the Paschal sacrifice they missed — nevertheless, we see in practice that the Almighty said that they should offer a Pesach Sheni sacrifice,

because nothing is lost.

And to such an extent is the Pesach Sheni sacrifice a primary matter — that from the laws that were stated regarding it, we also derive laws for the first Pesach

(like "on⁵⁵ matzot and maror they shall eat it"⁵⁶).

And in the completion of Pesach Sheni comes "double for the wise" — an elevation even regarding the first Pesach. As explained in Chassidus⁵⁷ regarding the concept that on Pesach Sheni one could eat in a manner of "chametz and matzah with him in the house"⁵⁸,

in which there is the elevation of transformation — "double for the wise" relative to the first Pesach, which could not be eaten while chametz existed.

And so too in this matter:

Since in practice there was a lack in the matter of the farbrengen on the eve of the twentieth of Kislev — nothing is lost,

the Torah always gives a Jew the ability to complete the past.

And as mentioned above,

we must speak in merit of Israel. So that which he did not spend last night was because he was compelled — "his evil inclination compelled him",

and if one could imagine that his windows were smashed,

and it would be "we force him" — then his inner soul and will would be revealed⁵⁹,

that he wants to farbreng — so "the Merciful One exempts one who is compelled"⁶⁰.

But the Yerushalmi says⁶¹ — that "we do not say 'as if he did'":

It is true that the Merciful One exempts one who is compelled,

but to say that through this it came about — one cannot,

because "we do not say 'as if he did'."

Nevertheless,

since there was compulsion in his case

(from the evil inclination),

he is given the ability to complete what he lacked,

even in a manner of "double for the wise".

Because if he can only complete the past without any addition

(double of wisdom)

the question becomes:

Why did Hashem do this, that something should be lacking in him? Because this very thing that he is compelled by the evil inclination,

this comes from the Most High,

as it is written⁶² "He works terrible things upon the children of men",

as the Mitteler Rebbe⁶³ explains that this is the matter of the contest etc.

So why did Hashem do this? Rather, this is so that through the deficiency there should afterwards come "double of wisdom".

On the part of man, he may not initially place himself in such a situation,

because this is a matter of "I will sin and then repent"⁶⁴;

but after he has already stumbled,

this is a situation that the Most High has set up,

and his inclination compelled him — the intention in this is that through this there should come with greater strength and greater vigor,

"double of wisdom".

And simply:

Since there was a lack in the matter of a farbrengen on the light of the 20th of Kislev — it must be completed, and in a manner of "double of wisdom". And a farbrengen as a farbrengen should be — with a public announcement so that all should know of it.

And how good that its completion is on the very day of Shabbat itself,

because the farbrengen was supposed to be on Shabbat night,

therefore it is fitting that its completion should be during the continuation of the Shabbat day.

Although regarding the Shabbat meals, each of the three meals on Shabbat is a matter in itself,

the evening of Shabbat,

the day of Shabbat and the time of the will of wills,

as explained in Kabbalah,

and as the Alter Rebbe also brings it down in his Siddur regarding the three meals

[and he brings it in the letters of Kabbalah,

and in the language of translation (Aramaic),

not translating it into the letters of Chabad even though in many places he does not bring intentions etc.],

that each meal has its essential matter — the meal of Shabbat night "this is the meal of the holy field of apples",

the meal of Shabbat day "this is the meal of the Holy Ancient One" etc.,

and the other levels are then "we come to eat with

Him"⁶⁵.

Nevertheless,

there is also the matter that the entire Shabbat is one point,

both Shabbat night and Shabbat day and the will of wills — as is understood from the words of our Sages, of blessed memory,⁶⁶ that regarding the Shabbat day it is not written "and there was evening and there was morning" as with the other days of creation,

because the entire Shabbat is one point of a day⁶⁷,

and in this there is no division of evening and morning. And in the language of Halachah in the Rambam

(at the beginning of the Laws of Shabbat,

at the start of the Book of Seasons):

that resting on Shabbat is both a positive commandment

("and on the seventh day you shall rest"⁶⁸)

and a negative commandment

("you shall not do any work"⁶⁹),

which positive commandment and negative commandment are

(in commandments)

analogous to morning and evening,

and on the Shabbat day both things are equal

(positive commandment and negative commandment)

in resting from work;

Shabbat is one point,

without distinctions between evening and morning,

positive commandment and negative commandment.

Therefore it is fitting that what was lacking, a farbrengen on Shabbat night

(because it was the 19th of Kislev,

the eve of the 20th of Kislev)

should be completed during the Shabbat day.

Since this farbrengen is a continuation of the farbrengen of the 19th of Kislev

(which this year was on the eve of the 19th of Kislev,

because the 19th of Kislev was on the sixth day)

— we will complete several matters that were then discussed.

At the conclusion of the farbrengen, we elaborated on the matter of "Who is a Jew",

and spoke about it with greater strength and greater vigor.

In addition to the simple reason why we spoke about it — because it is a matter unprecedented in Israel that destroys and devastates etc.,

therefore one must strive with all force to nullify it,

in the manner of the saying of our Sages, of blessed memory,⁷⁰ "Any generation in which the Temple is not built

(the Holy Temple)

in its days, it is considered as if it destroyed it",

for seemingly he did nothing,

why should it be considered as if the Holy Temple was destroyed because of him? Rather, from this very thing it is understood that every Jew has the power to build the Holy Temple in his days,

and therefore if he does not do so,

it is "as if he destroyed it" —

So in addition to this, we spoke about it in the farbrengen in connection with the redemption of the 19th-20th of Kislev,

because this has a special connection to the day of the 20th of Kislev:

It is stated in Ezra⁷¹

[as brought in the books that record what happened each day],

that in “the ninth month

(which is the month of Kislev,

which is the ninth from the month of Nissan)

on the twentieth of the month”

(i.e. the twentieth of Kislev)

“all the men of Yehudah and Binyamin gathered together to Jerusalem, etc.,

and Ezra the Kohen arose and said to them: You have transgressed and have brought in foreign women, etc.,

and now, give thanks to Hashem, the G‑d of your fathers, and do His will, and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign women. And all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice: So, according to your words, it is upon us to do.”

From this one sees clearly the connection of the twentieth of Kislev with guarding the matter of “Who is a Jew” — as it was then

(in the days of Ezra)

that Jews were not safeguarded regarding conversion according to halachah,

in the boundary between Jews and non-Jews,

and they took foreign women.

And on the twentieth of Kislev, every year, the matters that occurred the first time are repeated

(in the time of Ezra),

therefore it is understood that at this time there is a special empowerment to rectify this matter. Until as Ezra then rectified,

that at the time he said to the Jews “do His will” — all the Jews answered “So, according to your words, it is upon us to do”:

It is not a matter that depends on a vote,

whether one agrees this way or the opposite,

because it concerns “the word of Hashem⁷² — this is the halachah”⁷³,

consequently, as soon as Ezra aroused them regarding this,

the Jews answer “So, according to your words, it is upon us to do”

(without a vote).

From this there is also a lesson for each person in his service:

Every Jew has the “Ezra the Kohen” that is in his soul. It is well known that every Jew has within him “from the aspect of Moshe Rabbeinu, a”h”,

as explained in Tanya⁷⁴ that therefore it is said to every Jew⁷⁵ “What does Hashem your G‑d ask of you but to fear”,

because regarding the “Moshe” within each person, “fear⁷⁶ is a small matter”. It is stated in the Gemara⁷⁷ that “Ezra was worthy for the Torah to be given through him to Israel had Moshe not preceded him”. From this one sees that Ezra is comparable to Moshe Rabbeinu. And based on this, one could say that just as there is the “Moshe” within each person,

so too there is the “Ezra the Kohen” within each person.

The “Ezra the Kohen” within a Jew must gather together “all the men of Yehudah and Binyamin” that are within him — all his soul-powers,

to Jerusalem — complete awe,

the perfection of awe

(as it is stated in the Midrash⁷⁸ and Tosafos⁷⁹,

and explained in Likkutei Torah⁸⁰)

and effect upon them that they all be permeated with the desire to fulfill the will of Hashem,

so that they all cry out with “a loud voice” — “So, according to your words, it is upon us to do.”

And may it be His will that very soon there be fulfilled “And Yaakov settled⁸¹ — Yaakov sought to dwell in tranquility”⁸² in this world in actuality,

because since Yaakov,

“the chosen of the Patriarchs”⁸³,

requested this,

it will certainly be fulfilled in actuality.

How does this accord with what Rashi brings

(from the Midrash⁸⁴),

that regarding “Yaakov sought to dwell in tranquility” the Above said,

“Is it not enough for the righteous what is prepared for them in the World to Come, that they seek to dwell in tranquility in this world

(in astonishment)?”

One can explain the explanation of this,

that according to the inner dimension of the matters, the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, “Is it not enough for the righteous what is prepared for them in the World to Come, that they seek to dwell in tranquility” — is not in a manner of astonishment, but with satisfaction.

That is, that the Above says that not only will the righteous have the World to Come,

but they also request

(and they will receive)

a dwelling in tranquility in this world.

And similar to this is the explanation in Chassidus of the statement of the Midrash⁸⁵ on the verse⁸⁶ “You shall be holy, for I am holy” — “You shall be holy,

one might think like Me,

therefore it is said ‘for I am holy’,

My holiness is above your holiness.”

In simple terms, the explanation of this is,

that “one might think like Me” is a question in astonishment,

and this is rejected — “therefore it is said ‘for I am holy’,

My holiness is above your holiness”

(and the holiness of Jews cannot be “like Me”).

But Chassidus explains “can be like Me” with satisfaction⁸⁷:

Since every “I” is truly a part of G‑d above,

and becomes a partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the work of creation,

therefore “You shall be holy” — says the Midrash —

(“can” be)

“like Me”,

a Jew can stand on the same level of holiness as the Almighty, as it were.

Accordingly, if a Jew can be “like Me”,

on the same level of holiness as the Almighty — why is he commanded “You shall be holy”? On this it continues:

“It is written ‘for I am holy’,

My holiness is above your holiness”:

Since in actuality “My holiness is above your holiness”

(even though a Jew can be “like Me”,

on the same level of holiness as the Almighty),

he must strive that he attain more holiness, up to the amount that exists in the Almighty

(“My holiness”)

— “You shall be holy”.

Accordingly, one can also explain

(according to the inner aspect of the matters)

the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, “It is not enough for the righteous… but they also seek to sit in tranquility in this world” — it is

(not with astonishment, but)

with satisfaction,

that the righteous request

(and they bring about)

that they also sit in tranquility in this world.

Consequently, it is a certainty that Yaakov’s request in this matter is fulfilled in actual reality.

It is known the teaching and directive of the Alter Rebbe⁸⁸ that one should “live” with the time,

with the weekly portion that is studied at that time,

and each day — with the daily portion of Chumash of that day.

So too regarding the day of Yud-Tes Kislev — that at that time one must live with the daily portion of Chumash of that day. And in the fixed calendar of this year

(when Yud-Tes Kislev falls on the sixth day of Parshas Vayeishev)

this is — the portion from the sixth to the seventh in Parshas Vayeishev.

This is seemingly completely incomprehensible:

In this daily portion of Chumash, it speaks about undesirable matters — “And his master’s wife

(Potiphar’s wife)

cast her eyes upon Yosef, etc.”⁸⁹,

and this subsequently led to “And Yosef’s master took him and put him into the prison, etc.”⁹⁰

[And as explained in the Midrash⁹¹,

that Potiphar wanted to punish Yosef with death,

but he found that the entire incident of his wife was a lie,

however he could not completely acquit Yosef because of his wife’s honor,

therefore he punished him with sitting in the prison)

— now what connection does this have with Yud-Tes Kislev,

that one must live with this on Yud-Tes Kislev of this year?!

It will be understood based on the conclusion of the daily portion of Chumash*⁹¹,

that while sitting in the prison “the warden of the prison saw nothing at all in his hand

(of Yosef)

because Hashem was with him, and whatever he did, Hashem made successful”:

The same content of this daily portion of Chumash is the content of the portion of the redemption of Yud-Tes Kislev:

In this daily portion of Chumash it speaks that previously Yosef was sitting in the prison,

and at the end of the portion it says that there itself it was evident to the warden of the prison that “Hashem was with him, and whatever he did, Hashem made successful”.

Correspondingly, “And Yosef was brought down to Egypt”⁹² in every generation,

until the generation of the Alter Rebbe,

and the Alter Rebbe was imprisoned in incarceration

(just as Yosef in his generation),

only in Yosef’s generation it was called “the prison”,

and in the Alter Rebbe’s generation it was called “the Peter-Paul Fortress”.

And just as the conclusion of the daily portion of Chumash

(of Yud-Tes Kislev of this year)

is with that while being in incarceration it was evident how “Hashem was with him, and whatever he did, Hashem made successful” — so too the conclusion of the incarceration of the Alter Rebbe was in a manner that it was evident how “Hashem was with him, and whatever he did, Hashem made successful”,

until there was the redemption in its simple sense

[only afterwards this was delayed for another three hours, etc.*⁹²,

therefore the actual joy of redemption was fixed on the twentieth of Kislev].

And just as regarding Yosef it was openly evident to the warden of the prison that “Hashem was with him, and whatever he did, Hashem made successful”,

so too it was evident regarding the redemption of the Alter Rebbe “in the eyes of all the ministers and all the nations” that “this was from Hashem; it is wondrous in our eyes”⁹³.

Also in the daily portion of Chumash of the fifth day

(the fifth to the sixth)

of Parshas Vayeishev it states⁹⁴ “And Hashem was with Yosef, and he was a successful man”. Now what is the novelty specifically in this daily portion of Chumash of the sixth day where it states how “Hashem was with him, and whatever he did, Hashem made successful”?

But in that Torah portion, it does not discuss how Yosef succeeds while in prison,

which is a greater wonder than saying that Yosef is a "successful man" in general

(not in prison).

And specifically this wonder corresponds to the wonder that was with the Alter Rebbe — that while in prison it was "Hashem was with him, and whatever he did, Hashem made successful",

until he was redeemed from it.

And one can further explain this

(in the wonder of Yosef's success in the Torah portion of the sixth day relative to the Torah portion of the fifth day)

— and first, the explanation of the Tzemach Tzedek on the verse "And Hashem was with Yosef, and he was a successful man"⁹⁵:

"Success is a matter of mazal, as one calls a successful person a 'baal mazal',

glück in the vernacular

[This is one of the few times in Chassidus where the term "in the vernacular" appears (and not the term "in Yiddish"):

In most places in Chassidus, when a word from Yiddish is brought, they write "b'l"a" (=in the Ashkenazic language,

in the Yiddish language),

or they just write the word in Yiddish (without explaining that it is in the Yiddish language),

as at the end of the Tanya (end of Kuntres Acharon) it says "gevald gevald" (and known is the sicha of my father-in-law, the Rebbe, connected with this);

in Rashi's commentary one finds in many places the term "in the vernacular",

but not in Chassidus.

However, here is an exception, that the Tzemach Tzedek uses the term "in the vernacular" for the word in Yiddish — "glück in the vernacular". And the Tzemach Tzedek continues:]

And the foundation of the aspect of mazal, and this is the aspect of Yosef...

And as it is said, "Everything depends on mazal... children, life, and sustenance depend on mazal." And behold, mazal is Keter,

and it is also known that the root of Yesod is drawn from Keter...

And this is "And Hashem was with Yosef",

meaning, in Yosef, who is Yesod, the light of Keter is drawn,

therefore "he was a successful man..."

That is, that success is Yosef's — the aspect of Yesod — he is the "successful man" — but this is when the light of Keter is drawn into Yesod

(but this is not the success of the aspect of Keter in and of itself).

Therefore, success is drawn "from the mazal of Arich Anpin",

Arich of Keter

(and not Atik of Keter),

because this is when Keter is drawn into Yesod

(not as Keter is in and of itself).

Based on this, one can explain the difference between Yosef's success in the portion of the fifth day

("And Hashem was with Yosef, and he was a successful man")

and in the portion of the sixth day — "whatever he did, Hashem made successful":

In the first verse

(in the portion of the fifth day)

it says "And Hashem was with Yosef, and he was a successful man",

meaning that Yosef is the "successful man".

However, in the second verse

(in the portion of the sixth day)

it says "and whatever he did, Hashem made successful",

that this is a success from Hashem.

And according to the above explanation of the Tzemach Tzedek

(in the first verse)

one can state the explanation of the difference:

"And Hashem was with Yosef, and he was a successful man" is the matter of success as it comes from the drawing down of Keter

(Arich)

into Yesod,

into the endless worlds, etc.,

but the success is from Yesod

("successful man"),

not from Keter in and of itself.

However, "and whatever he did, Hashem made successful" is when the success is from the aspect of Keter

("Hashem made successful"),

from the aspect of Atik

(which is incomparably higher than Arich).

And so too was it with the imprisonment of the Alter Rebbe,

as he writes in his well-known letter that his redemption was revealed "in the eyes of all the ministers and all the peoples in all the provinces of the king" that "this was from Hashem",

similar to what is stated here "Hashem made successful".

Even though "Hashem made successful" is a drawing down from above

(from Keter)

— it is not the simple meaning that this is not connected with Yosef's service,

rather "whatever he did, Hashem made successful",

meaning that it is the action of Yosef,

and as it emphasizes beforehand "his hand" of Yosef

("The chief jailer did not look into anything that was under his hand, because Hashem was with him; and whatever he did, Hashem made successful".

Similar to what is stated earlier "Hashem made successful in his hand"),

meaning that in Yosef's action and service

("in his hand")

the Supreme One draws down success,

and success in the manner of "Hashem made successful",

from Atik.

And one can say further:

According to what is explained in Igeret HaKodesh³²

(as mentioned above section 5)

that the coming into being of the physical world is taken from His Essence and Being,

it is understood that Yosef's action below is connected with Essence and Being,

higher than Atik and Arich.

The lesson from this:

Even though in the service of man there are several levels,

until "with all your heart⁹⁶ — with both your inclinations"⁹⁷ etc.,

the main thing that must be is actual deed,

the deed is the main thing. There must be the "his hand" and action of every Jew. Because the intention is specifically actual deed.

And specifically through action by the hand of man, one takes essence and substance. And one has in this the continuation of success from Keter

(Atik),

until from essence and substance — "what he does, Hashem makes successful."

And it is also emphasized in connection with Yud-Tes Kislev — as the Alter Rebbe said⁹⁸ that "all his connections and those who follow in his footsteps will be on top,"

the Chassidim will be on top,

and seemingly:

it speaks about Chassidei Chabad,

one should have emphasized Chabad that is in intellect,

not the hand of man.

Nevertheless, here it is emphasized that

(even)

the Chassidim will be on top,

because the main intention is,

that the intellect should permeate and come down into actual deed,

among Chassidim,

and also in this

(in actual deed)

the Chassidim will be on top.

And in the well-known language that Chassidim used to say, brought in the talks of our Nesi'im⁹⁹

(in Russian)

— "Toporu da plakhu,"

which means axe on the wood:

the "topor" and the "plakha" are not connected with man's intellect,

but with actual deed. One must take the "topor"

(the axe)

and chop in actuality. But not simply chop without calculation,

or use the "topor" for something not good,

rather "Toporu da plakhu" — one must chop the wood and make from them holiness.

As it was in the time of the Temple,

that they used an axe. And in the language of the Gemara — a "magal,"

to cut down trees for the wood for the arrangement. Which certainly had to be with calculation,

and not simply chop the wood so that they would be splinters,

rather one must have wood a cubit long and a cubit wide¹⁰⁰.

In the time of the Gemara it was called "magal,"

and in the time of exile it is called "topor,"

and it must be "Toporu da plakhu,"

take the "topor" and chop with order in actual deed.

And through the service in actual deed,

by the hand of man

(the hand of Chassidim),

"with a high hand"¹⁰¹

(even in the time of exile),

and in a manner that is above measure and limitation — it becomes "what he does, Hashem makes successful in his hand."

And thus one goes out of exile — "and the children of Israel went out with a high hand,"

with "Hashem makes successful,"

and with joy and a good heart.

In the farbrengen of Yud-Tes Kislev¹⁰² they also spoke about the proposal regarding the state of the world that everyone should say in prayer

(also those who until now did not say it):

(a) In the introduction to the prayer before "Mah Tovu" one should say "I accept upon myself the positive commandment of 'Love your fellow as yourself'"¹⁰³. (b)

At the end of the prayer after the three verses "Al tira..."¹⁰⁴,

"Uztu eitza..."¹⁰⁵,

"V'ad ziknah..."¹⁰⁶

(which are said after "Aleinu")

one should add saying the verse¹⁰⁷ "Ach tzaddikim yodu lishmecha yeshvu yesharim et panecha."

The matter of "I accept upon myself the positive commandment of 'Love your fellow as yourself'" is a matter that is particularly time-bound — as one is recently occupied with the matter of Ahavat Yisrael until Achdut Yisrael — because of that which has recently increased in the opposite of Ahavat Yisrael

(as will be explained).

Regarding the matter that is spoken about, that there must be Ahavat Yisrael until Achdut Yisrael — one could seemingly ask a question:

In the Torah it only states the command of "Love your fellow as yourself"¹⁰⁸,

and so it is brought in the Rambam¹⁰⁹ and in Sefer HaMitzvot of the Tzemach Tzedek¹¹⁰ etc. regarding Ahavat Yisrael — where is the source in Nigleh,

in Chassidut for Achdut Yisrael?

This is understood from a Yerushalmi¹¹¹

[and it is known the rule¹¹² that if in the Bavli it does not state otherwise than in the Yerushalmi,

then also the Bavli — "He has made me dwell in dark places"¹¹³ — agrees with the Yerushalmi]:

It states in the Yerushalmi regarding Jews a parable of two hands in the same body,

that it is not possible that one hand should punish the other hand,

so too are Jews,

because "all of Israel are one body"¹¹⁴.

Seemingly — why does one need a parable for this,

it is explicitly stated in the Torah "Love your fellow as yourself",

which itself is a reason and rationale,

that if the other is "your fellow",

there must be "and you shall love"?

One sees from this that without the parable one could learn that "Love your fellow as yourself" means like one body loves another body,

but not like two hands of the same body. Therefore the Yerushalmi gives a parable,

that it must be more than that — like two hands in the same body,

because "all of Israel are one body."

From this emerge two matters: (a)

Ahavas Yisrael — that Jews are separate bodies,

and nevertheless they have a commandment to love one another

(as we learn from the parable of the Yerushalmi). (b)

Achdus Yisrael — because "all Yisrael are one body,"

like two hands in the same body.

These two matters are also seen in Tanya, chapter 32. In explaining the concept of Ahavas Yisrael, the Alter Rebbe says two matters: (a)

The explanation of love regarding Jews who are below in separate bodies — "that they are all compatible and have one father for all of them, and therefore all Yisrael are called literal brothers from the aspect of the root of their soul in the one Hashem, only that the bodies are separate."

That is, that even when Jews are below "separate bodies," they are "all compatible and have one father for all of them," and therefore they are "literal brothers from the aspect of the root of their soul in the one Hashem" — the concept of Ahavas Yisrael. (b)

The explanation from the aspect of how Jews are above "in their root and source in the living G-d,"

where they are one actual thing

("all Yisrael are as one body"),

and "who knows their greatness and virtue from the aspect of their root and source in the living G-d."

And on the contrary:

From this it emerges

that Ahavas Yisrael and Achdus Yisrael are not two equal matters,

but rather that Achdus Yisrael is the inwardness and cause of Ahavas Yisrael.

That is, since there is Achdus Yisrael

("all Yisrael are as one body"),

therefore it must be expressed and come down into Ahavas Yisrael,

"and you shall love your fellow as yourself."

Accordingly¹¹⁴ the question is reversed:

Since Achdus Yisrael is the inwardness and cause of Ahavas Yisrael — why does the Torah not speak primarily about Achdus Yisrael,

and from this one would learn regarding Ahavas Yisrael? Nevertheless we see that on the contrary:

The Torah speaks primarily about Ahavas Yisrael — "and you shall love your fellow as yourself"?

One of the explanations of this

(and give to the wise and he will become yet wiser¹¹⁵ — further explanations of this)

— that this is so regarding all matters of Torah and mitzvos:

In all matters of Torah and mitzvos there is an inwardness and cause of the matter and intentions of the mitzvah, etc.,

and an externality of the matter — the fulfillment of the mitzvah in actual deed. And in the Torah the concept of the fulfillment of the mitzvah in actual deed is primarily emphasized.

As we see regarding the mitzvah of teshuvah:

Although the essence

(and inwardness of the concept)

of teshuvah is in the heart,¹¹⁵

and the main thing is the resolution of complete regret over the past and a good acceptance for the future — nevertheless in the count of the mitzvos they include

(not the inwardness of the concept of teshuvah,

but the "externality" of the concept —)

the concept of verbal confession.¹¹⁶ Because this is the fulfillment of the mitzvah in actual speech.

And likewise also regarding Torah and prayer. And as has been discussed at length many times.

And accordingly it is regarding all mitzvos,

that although there is an inwardness of the concept — the foundation of all Torah and mitzvos,

the matters of intellect and faith — the Torah speaks primarily about the actual deed of fulfilling the mitzvos. As we see in the Written Torah,

that the majority of it speaks about actual deed,

"we will do,"

and in a few places it speaks about matters of intellect and faith, etc.,

"we will hear,"

the foundation of Torah and mitzvos.

And so too is the order of teaching Torah to a child:

One does not begin teaching him from the "foundation of foundations" of Judaism,

"I am Hashem your G-d,"¹¹⁷

rather one begins teaching from the book of Vayikra,

because "let the pure come and occupy themselves with pure matters"¹¹⁸

(pure animals from which offerings are brought,

which is discussed in the book of Vayikra):

"I am Hashem your G-d" is certainly also "pure,"

but what does one begin teaching — "pure" as it is connected with actual deed — the actual offering of the sacrifices

(from pure animals).

As we see that even in the service of the sacrifices themselves, the emphasis in the Torah is specifically on the actual offering,

not on the inwardness and spiritual service regarding the sacrifices. When the child grows older he will learn that "when a man from among you brings an offering to Hashem"¹¹⁹ means

(as the Alter Rebbe explains in Likkutei Torah¹²⁰),

that the man must offer from himself a sacrifice, etc.,

and this is the intention that must be in the offering of the sacrifice. But in the Torah

(primarily)

what is emphasized is — "when a man from among you brings an offering to Hashem" simply,

the offering in actual deed.

There are indeed intentions that the man offering must have

("for the sake of six things the sacrifice is offered, etc."¹²¹)

— but if he has only the intentions and does not actually offer the sacrifice, it is nothing,

as explained in Tanya.¹²²

Furthermore:

Even one who did not have in his heart

(the six things)... is fit,

which is a condition of the court,

but the actual bringing of the offering he must do himself,

and the court cannot do it for him. Certainly he must have the inner feeling and the intentions,

but the main emphasis, as an absolute requirement, is the actual bringing of the offering.

This also applies regarding the commandment of loving a fellow Jew:

The inner dimension and reason for the commandment is indeed the unity of Israel,

"All of Israel are like one body." But in the Torah, the main emphasis is on the fulfillment of the commandment in action - to love another,

"And you shall love your fellow as yourself."

For the Torah was given specifically in this physical world,

and there Jews are "separate bodies",

each Jew has a distinct body with distinct 248 limbs and 365 sinews. And so it is, according to the requirement of the law,

therefore each Jew has a distinct opinion according to halachah,

for example - in the Sanhedrin, each person's opinion is counted as an opinion in its own right, distinct from the others

(regarding a teacher and his student, it states that they are counted (regarding several matters) as one opinion,

but that is only regarding his opinion,

regarding his body and his 248 limbs etc., the student is certainly an independent entity from his teacher].

Therefore, in the Torah, the main emphasis is - that despite the fact that in this world Jews are "separate bodies", there must be "And you shall love your fellow as yourself".

The reason and inner dimension of this commandment is - the unity of Israel,

that in truth "All of Israel are like one body",

but in practice, in this world, one sees physically and externally that Jews are separate,

therefore the emphasis is on loving a fellow Jew. And within this itself, there must be the inner feeling,

that all Jews are literally one thing - the unity of Israel.

And actually, the unity of Israel also does not negate the reality of the multiplicity of Jews

(that each Jew is an independent entity),

rather, within this multiplicity itself, unity is drawn forth.

For the reality of multiplicity is according to the Torah,

and as it is written*

(regarding the future redemption)

"And you will be gathered one by one, O children of Israel" - indeed "all of you",

"as one unit" literally

(as explained in Likkutei Torah, Parshat Nitzavim),

and all Jews become "one congregation"

(singular term),

but together with this there will be the ingathering of the exiles,

exiles in the plural,

and ingathering,

as explained in many places that ingathering does not apply to a single thing,

but specifically to multiple things

[and therefore the question is asked on the verse "If your outcasts be at the ends of the heavens, from there the L-rd your G-d will gather you etc.",

that since it speaks here of an ingathering which applies specifically to many,

why does it say "your outcasts" in the singular].

The matter of loving a fellow Jew and the unity of Israel is relevant to strengthening specifically in this present time - when there are those who spread hatred among Jews,

and do so in a frightening manner and in all sorts of ways,

such as has never been in Israel!

Had we been worthy, we would have increased in loving a fellow Jew earlier, and we would have effected that initially "I will not bring [evil] upon you",

at least now - we must do all the matters to increase and strengthen loving a fellow Jew until the unity of Israel.

And to such an extent is the effort to spread hatred among Jews,

that it is printed about this in the "newspapers"...

The matter of "newspapers" in the positive sense also has a special connection to the 19th of Kislev:

It is known the saying of the Chassidim,

already in the time of the Alter Rebbe,

and some say that the Alter Rebbe himself said it - that at the time when Moshiach will come, it will be written about this in the "newspapers".

Seemingly - after Moshiach will come,

after Eliyahu will come a day before etc.,

and the great innovation that Moshiach will accomplish - what kind of accomplishment is it that about this it will be printed in the "newspapers"?!

Nevertheless, they say that it will be so,

that they will write about Moshiach in the "newspapers".

And in truth, it is already written about this in the "newspapers" that Moshiach is coming very soon!

- They will immediately begin to interpret what is meant...

Just as the main innovation of Moshiach is not that they will write about him in the "newspapers", but rather his very essence - so too is this regarding several matters:

There are those who, when they come to a farbrengen, the main matter that occupies them is this - that they see a non-Jew there!

One sits at the farbrengen connected with the redemption of the Alter Rebbe,

and from what does one become inspired - from the fact that a non-Jew came in. One whispers to another:

I see - this and that non-Jew,

this and that senator,

congressman,

sits right here at the farbrengen! And from this one sees in what consists the greatness of the Alter Rebbe...!

If that one had meant what the Alter Rebbe wrote in his letter, that his redemption had taken away,

and also the officers of the people etc. had seen it - it would not have mattered;

but his intention is the inspiration from a non-Jew literally...

When one asks him:

About what was discussed in the maamar - he does not know! What does he know - that this and that non-Jew came!

In general, there are several types of people at the farbrengen:

One group that becomes inspired from the fact that a non-Jew comes to the farbrengen. This is the only thing that occupies them...

A second group that becomes inspired from the fact that the farbrengen lasted five hours. Five hours of time...!

Five hours of time Jews remained sitting at the farbrengen. There are those who are in the middle of leaving - this he also noticed,

that another one left...

The intention, however, is that it should make an impression upon you - what did it make an impression upon you?!

He only knows about another...

One asks him:

How did the maamar begin? He answers - they pushed him! About what was discussed in the farbrengen - they squeezed him! What does he know - that the farbrengen lasted five hours of time...

Afterwards there is a third group,

who consider themselves knowers in matters of the world,

one comes to hear what will be said about the state of the world,

kingdoms provoking one another,

about the "super-powers" etc.

He already has an opinion on how one should conduct oneself in this - he wants to hear what one has to say about this.

He waits,

five hours of time perhaps they will talk about this something. They do not talk about this. Afterwards he waits perhaps that the farbrengen of Shabbos will come - perhaps they will about this,

then mention. They then also do not mention about this!

What does it matter to you what happens in the kingdoms. Not you can do something in Washington,

in Jerusalem,

in Moscow,

in London etc. - so what is this to you?!

But it matters to him - because he is a common person,

so what does it mean,

he does not know what happens in the world.

You want to do something in the world - your way for this is by saying Tehillim,

learning Chitas,

giving tzedakah,

and then he will indeed do something in the kingdoms provoking one another,

as our sages of blessed memory said: "Whoever engages in Torah and acts of kindness and prays with the community, it is as if he redeemed me and my children from among the nations."

The president cannot do this,

because even according to the opinion that there is tzedakah among the nations of the world,

this is his matter as an individual,

but as president and leader of the state his role is to effect upon all the people of the state that they fulfill the seven commandments of the children of Noah. Only the matter

(of doing "redeem me and my children from among the nations" through Torah, prayer, and acts of kindness)

was given over to a Jew,

and through this,

he effects also that the nations conduct themselves properly:

When one says "redeem me and my children from among the nations" one could seemingly mean that then the nations cease to exist,

because their coming into being, their existence, and their vitality is from the G-dly spark within them - "me",

consequently when it becomes "redeem me etc. from among the nations",

they would seemingly have to cease to exist. And this one cannot say because "His mercies are upon all His works"?

This is the explanation in this:

Instead of the fact that the "Li" - including the G-dly spark within them - is in exile and captivity, as it were, "among the nations,"

it becomes "Padani,"

he is redeemed and ransomed,

and instead of "from among the nations,"

he becomes "over the nations,"

He commanded and they were created,

and the nations feel openly how the spark is over the nations,

as the Most High

(and Jews)

is over them as the master, consequently they fulfill their role - "And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks."

One sees from this that a Jew, through his service in prayer, Torah, and acts of kindness, can thereby cause the nations to conduct themselves properly,

until through this he hastens the redemption,

which then will be in perfection.

Nevertheless, when one asks him what was discussed in the discourse - he does not know,

he waits for one to talk about the state of the world;

or he is impressed by the gentile who sits at the farbrengen;

or from the fact that the farbrengen lasts five hours and one remains sitting...

In the last thirty-three years, have you reviewed a single discourse that was said?!

He argues - it is not for him,

he has a weak memory!

When it comes to a matter in his "business" that he needs to remember - do you also not remember?!

Surely he remembers - this is indeed relevant to him regarding a livelihood!

So why can you not review a discourse...

Thirty-three years - you could have reviewed one discourse!

And surely you can - "Mozhesh da nye khotchesh,"

the explanation of which is - surely you can,

you only need to want!

Consequently, from the discourses over the course of the thirty-three years, you could have reviewed a discourse. There are not, Heaven forbid, original discourses,

and even where one wishes to delude oneself that it is a novelty - it is stated elsewhere.

And as is known what our Nesiim said regarding the matter of connection through studying their Torah,

and especially at the time when one saw him, etc.

Regarding our matter - the proposal about an addition in prayer - in the introduction to prayer "Hareini mekabel alai mitzvat aseh shel ve'ahavta lerei'acha kamocha"

(in the introduction to prayer),

and at the end of prayer the verse "Ach tzadikim yodu lishmecha yeshvu yesharim et panecha" - one can ask:

It is known that "Nahara nahara ufashatei,"

different circles of Jews have their own nusach of prayer,

and it is known the entire uproar about not changing from the custom of our forefathers

(as explained in the Yerushalmi),

so ostensibly, what does it matter to add to the prayer,

from a different nusach?

And it is known the aphorism that the Chasam Sofer advised that "Chadash asur min haTorah,"

and based on this, why should one add a new matter to prayer - is:

One says to him:

There was the Rambam,

who was a Jew and a scholar,

and he wrote Igeres Teiman and Igeres HaShmad and Igeres Techiyas HaMeisim, etc.,

and he also wrote a book "Hilchos Hilchos,"

and in this book he included "Seder HaTefillos Kol HaShanah,"

and there it states that one says "Ach tzadikim, etc."

(there it is not after the recitation of "Aleinu,"

because according to the Siddur of the Rambam, one does not say "Aleinu" every day,

but the verse "Ach tzadikim" he included there in the daily prayer! And since this - is stated in his book "Hilchos Hilchos" - this is a halachah.

[For this is indeed a novelty regarding the Rambam:

Before him,

there were Rav Amram Gaon and Rav Saadia Gaon who also made prayer books,

but by them this was in a separate composition of their responsa and matters in Torah [it is not separate matters, Heaven forbid,

but they presented it in separate compositions].

However, the Rambam included his siddur in his book "Hilchos Hilchos"].

He argues further:

This is in "Yadin Yadin,"

but where does it state in "Yoreh Yoreh" that one should say "Ach tzadikim, etc."?

It is stated explicitly in the Bach,

and then in the Taz

(in the name of his father-in-law,

the Bach).

I told someone about this

(that thus it is stated in the Rambam,

Bach and Taz)

- he told me that there it states that one should say many verses,

not only "Ach tzadikim, etc."

I said to him:

If you want to say all the verses - say all the verses. I am making an uproar about saying "Ach tzadikim, etc.,"

so if you want - you make an uproar about the other verses!

[There is no Ba"Ch and T"Z there that states that one says "Ach Tzadikim Go'" while seated - but this was not copied in the Siddur of Admu"r HaZaken.

And in the Shaar HaKlal he did not comment on this - so it implies that this is not the practice].

And likewise, the Alter Rebbe also adds in his Siddur, which is equal for every soul,

[and it is known that the composition of the Siddur is one of his ten merits, etc.']

that one should say "Ach Tzadikim Go'" in the name of the Rasha"L,

and "also in the Siddur HaAriza"L of Zolkva this is cited in the name of the Rasha"L",

which is the Siddur HaAriza"L of Rabbi Shabtai Rashkover,

and it is known that he was a disciple of the Baal Shem Tov,

and in his Siddur I have "Yichudim of the Holy Divine Baal Shem Tov"].

[- And to note - that the lineage of the Maharsha"L is from the tribe of Yehudah and King David - I do not know if this has relevance,

but since Mashiach is imminent - this is mentioned].

Additionally, it is also stated

(that one should say "Ach Tzadikim Go'" at the end of the prayer)

in the Siddur "Seder Avodat Yisrael",

which contains wisdom beyond the great work. And it is known that this Siddur is accepted as a final authority in the circle of G-d-fearing and wholesome Jews who followed the approach of "Torah and Derech Eretz",

they accepted this Siddur.

[Possibly because "Ach Tzadikim" in this Siddur (Seder Avodat Yisrael) is written several pages after the prayer (and in the meantime - an interruption of many matters) - it was omitted from later Siddurim which are based on this Siddur].

And regarding Ahavat Yisrael in the introduction to prayer - it appears in the Siddurim of the Ariza"L and the writings of the Ariza"L,

Magen Avraham,

Siddur Admu"r HaZaken,

and others.

And especially since the Alter Rebbe said regarding Chassidus in general

(and likewise regarding the text of his prayer, etc.),

that this is not a matter for a specific circle among Jews,

but rather it must and will ultimately reach

(in a manner of dissemination)

every Jew and all Jews. And as one sees tangibly that it is spreading, etc.].

And one could elaborate on this,

but we still need to speak about other matters,

the continuation of the explanation regarding the conclusion of the Yerushalmi, etc.

In the farbrengen preceding this, it was asked: How does the conclusion of the Yerushalmi

(Order Taharot)

that has reached us,

which speaks about a matter that is not good,

accord with the principle that one concludes with a good matter?

For although the conclusion of the Yerushalmi before us is not the [actual] conclusion,

because the manuscript of this conclusion has not reached us - but this is nevertheless with Divine Providence that the actual conclusion is as it is before us, with a matter that is not good - one must understand how this accords with the principle that one concludes with a good matter.

And it was explained,

that one can say based on what is known, that there are two orders of the Mishnayot - (a)

Zeraim,

Moed,

Nezikin, Nashim,

Kodashim,

Taharot,

whose acronym is ZM"N NK"T.

Which order is based on the exposition of the Gemara and the Tikkunei Zohar on the verse "And your faith shall be your store of salvations, wisdom, and knowledge",

"Faith is the Order Zeraim, etc. Knowledge is the Order Taharot". And (b)

Nashim,

Zeraim,

Moed,

Kodashim,

Taharot,

Nezikin. Its acronym is NZ"M KT"N.

Which order is based on the exposition of the Midrash Tehillim and Bamidbar Rabbah on the verse "The Torah of Hashem is perfect, etc.",

"The Torah of Hashem is perfect, this is Order Nashim, etc. The judgments of Hashem are true, they are righteous altogether, this is Order Nezikin, etc.".

And based on this, one can say that the Yerushalmi follows the second order

(unlike the Bavli, which follows the first order),

NZ"M KT"N,

in which case it turns out that the conclusion of the Yerushalmi is with Order Nezikin

(not with Order Taharot),

consequently, the conclusion of the Yerushalmi is not with a matter that is not good.

One must, however, understand the explanation of why the Yerushalmi specifically follows the order of NZ"M KT"N,

and the Bavli follows the order of ZM"N NK"T.

And the explanation of this can be said - based on what the Tosafot Yom Tov writes in his introduction to Order Nezikin:

He writes that the order of the Mishnayot is Zeman Nakat.

(As we learn from the verse "And your faithfulness shall be your business etc."),

"And likewise the order of the Rambam." Then he brings that the author of Kaf Nachat

[a Mishnayot that many use,

and one carries it with oneself when one travels. And now it has been reprinted,

renewed],

arranged the Mishnayot in the order of Nezikin Kodashim Taharot,

where at that time Nezikin was the sixth order

(according to what is said in Midrash Tehillim chapter 19 on the verse "The Torah of Hashem is perfect etc.").

And the Tosafot Yom Tov mediates between these two orders in Mishnayot - the order of Zeman Nakat according to the exposition of the Gemara on the verse of Yeshayahu

("And your faithfulness shall be your business etc.")

and the order of Nezikin Kodashim Taharot according to the exposition of the Midrash on the verse of Tehillim

("The Torah of Hashem is perfect etc.")

- that "David said

(in the book of Tehillim)

and Yeshayahu each one said it in his time."

That is:

The difference between the two orders in the Mishnayot depends on the difference of the time when the two verses

(from which we learn the two orders)

were said:

"This is the rule: at the time when Israel is on their land

(and especially after the time of "you have shed much blood")

then Nezikin, most of which is about monetary matters and is not dependent on a person's body, is fitting to be last. But Yeshayahu, behold he said in the verse "Behold their valiant ones cry outside",

which is expounded in tractate Chagigah regarding the time of the destruction

[where at that time it is emphasized how Jews are like a sheep among seventy wolves etc.],

and then Kodashim and Taharot are fitting to be last etc."

That is:

At the time when David

["the sweet singer of Israel"]

said the verse in Tehillim,

when at that time Jews were in the Land of Israel,

and there was a situation of each person under his vine and each person under his fig tree etc.,

the laws of Kodashim and Taharot are more prevalent and relevant

(which pertain to the Land of Israel,

and will pertain to the Holy Temple that will be built by his son Shlomo)

than the laws of Nezikin

(like "one who injures his fellow etc."),

therefore the order is Kodashim Taharot

(Kodashim Taharot Nezikin).

And at the time when Yeshayahu said the verse

(connected to the time of exile)

the laws of Nezikin are more relevant than the laws of Kodashim and Taharot

[in the time of exile there are also prayers in place of sacrifices they instituted,

but sacrifices themselves are not present at that time],

therefore the order is Nezikin Kodashim Taharot

(Nezikin Kodashim Taharot).

In the manner that the law is in the laws of instruction,

that when there are two questions one must first answer the question that is relevant to that time.

But it is not the meaning that in the time of exile one should not study the laws of Kodashim and Taharot,

because one must know the laws at the time when the third Holy Temple will be,

even though "Moshe and Aharon are with them" one will nevertheless need to know what to ask them.

Based on this it is also understood that the difference between the two orders corresponds to the difference of the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Talmud Bavli:

The Talmud Yerushalmi is connected to the Land of Israel,

"a land which etc. Hashem your God looks after it from the beginning of the year until the end of the year",

and its air is pure and its substance is pure etc.,

consequently the laws of Nezikin are less relevant,

and the laws of Kodashim and Taharot are more relevant,

even in this time,

because in the Land of Israel

(even in this time)

there are laws connected to tithes and tithes,

and there is the Western Wall there,

consequently the laws connected to this holy place are relevant,

that one may not go there etc.,

Therefore according to the Talmud Yerushalmi the order of the Mishnayot of Kodashim Taharot is more fitting,

Kodashim Taharot and then Nezikin.

However the Talmud Bavli is more connected to outside the land

(Babylonia),

whose air is impure and whose substance is impure etc.

[although even there a Jew must make the Land of Israel,

so that even there it should be "behold He does not slumber nor sleep, the Guardian of Israel"),

and the Talmud Bavli is "He placed me in darkness" - consequently in it the laws of Nezikin are more relevant than the laws of Kodashim and Taharot.

Therefore according to the Talmud Bavli the order of Nezikin Kodashim Taharot is more fitting,

Nezikin and then Kodashim and Taharot,

because the laws of Nezikin are more relevant,

but one must also know the laws of Kodashim and Taharot in order to know what to ask Moshe and Aharon when the third Holy Temple will be.

From this there is also a lesson for rabbis:

However, the most essential matter that must be protected is the matter of ignorance.

In the past, at least it was known that one must ask a question,

and rabbis had to answer the questions. But today, Jews do not know

that one must even ask a question.

Consequently, the rabbis must first and foremost ensure that people have knowledge and know what to ask.

And to such an extent is the ignorance,

that there can be a rosh yeshivah who does not know about the unity of G-d.

The unity of G-d is for him

that an idol,

a statue, is forbidden,

but regarding what the Rambam writes that the Holy One, blessed be He, has no form of a body and is not a body, etc., he does not know,

because he has not studied it!

Even if he studied it, he does not understand it,

because primarily he began to study and immersed himself

(not in the Book of Knowledge of the Rambam, but)

in the Book of Torts of the Rambam!

The order in the Rambam is also connected with halachah,

as he himself studies the Rambam according to this principle, for the Rambam himself arranged his book,

that it begins with the Book of Knowledge and only afterwards comes the Book of Torts

(although "one who wishes to become wise should engage in monetary laws"),

starting with the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, where it discusses the unity of G-d and the matter of prayer to G-d, which consists of contemplation on the exaltation of G-d and the lowliness of man,

as the Rambam writes that "what is the way to love Him and fear Him at the time that one contemplates, etc."

Nevertheless, when it comes to actual study, one skips the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah and the Book of Knowledge,

and goes directly to the Book of Torts, contrary to how the Rambam himself arranged his book and wanted it to be studied according to this order,

that first and foremost comes the Book of Knowledge and then the subsequent thirteen books.

And may it be His will that ultimately he will effect upon himself that he begin to study the Rambam not as he wishes,

but as the Rambam wishes, first and foremost to begin from the Book of Knowledge and then the subsequent books.

That this also has a connection with love of Israel:

It was discussed in the farbrengen of the previous Shabbat regarding the division of the entire Talmud,

that since one person alone cannot complete the entire Talmud,

it is divided among several people,

and it is credited to each one who took a part in the division as if he also studied the other parts.

Similarly, one can also do regarding the Rambam:

divide the fourteen books among different people,

and consequently, even if another studies the Book of Knowledge,

it is as if he studied it,

and this will ultimately effect that he will also at least look into the Book of Knowledge.

And may it be His will that through this matter of love of Israel, we will hasten to bring the redemption,

that then it will be "but the righteous, and Your people are all righteous, shall give thanks to Your name, the upright shall dwell in Your presence" openly and completely,

and we will merit that which is stated in the Midrash, "seven groups of righteous in the Garden of Eden, one above the other,

the first group: 'but the righteous shall give thanks to Your name, the upright shall dwell in Your presence' — 'you shall see your world in your lifetime,' souls in bodies sitting in 'Your presence' in the Third Temple, in the true and complete redemption, speedily in our days, literally.

Discourse (in the form of a talk)

Beginning with the words "He redeemed my soul in peace."

In continuation of what was discussed earlier

(in the discourse)

regarding the Holy Land,

and in addition, the redemption must already be actual,

because all the signs of the redemption at the end of tractate Sotah have already been fulfilled in actuality,

the redemption must also already be actual —

one of the ways to hasten it,

is through the matter of charity for the Holy Land,

charity for "the lands of the living,"

as the master of the redemption writes in several of his letters which are printed in the Holy Epistle,

and additional letters that are not printed there,

and also from his holiness, my father-in-law, the Rebbe, the leader of our generation.

That this is the special matter of "Kollel Chabad,"

charity for the Holy Land and Jerusalem in particular,

which the master of the redemption founded.

And on this Saturday night, a Melaveh Malkah takes place,

the meal of King David, the Messiah,

for the benefit of "Kollel Chabad"

(as was previously announced).

In order to participate in this, they will distribute drink from the farbrengen before the Melaveh Malkah,

from the farbrengen that takes place within the four cubits of the Nasi of our generation,

where he was for ten consecutive years.

And one should distribute a portion of the drink here

(since it is the Sabbath day),

and the remainder should be distributed at the Melaveh Malkah.

Since at the conclusion of this week it will be Chanukah

(which is blessed from this Shabbos),

which is also connected to the future redemption,

because "these lights are never nullified,"

and in the future to come, when the commandment "as the commandment of Your will" will be fulfilled,

it will be in completeness and in a revealed manner -

They will also give drink for a gathering that will take place during the days of Chanukah.

Similarly, they will give drink for the Jews who are still, for now, behind the Iron Curtain,

where the Baal Shem Tov was born,

the Maggid and the Baal HaGeulah,

and there was his imprisonment and redemption,

and afterwards, also the work of his honor, our master, teacher, and Rebbe, began in that country,

and also when he left from there,

he said that this is only in a physical sense,

but in a spiritual and internal sense, he is together with them -

They will also give drink from the farbrengen of the twentieth of Kislev which follows the tenth of Kislev,

which the redemption also has a connection with them - for the Jews behind the Iron Curtain,

which will be distributed in an appropriate manner and at an appropriate time.

And may it be His will that all these matters,

and the greatness of the drink that brings close, will further bring closer the true and complete redemption through our righteous Moshiach.

His honor, our Rebbe, may he live for many good days, gave a bottle of drink to R. Sh. Halevi D. may he live - for Melaveh Malkah for the benefit of "Kollel Chabad." To R. A. may he live - for the "P'ri" gathering during the days of Chanukah. To P. Y.B. may he live - for the Russian Jews.

Afterwards, he began to play the melody of the Hakafos of his father, of blessed memory.

There is also a custom to study a commentary of Rashi on the weekly Torah portion,

and also a matter in the notes of the father on the Zohar of our Torah portion.

Due to the shortness of time, we will speak briefly only about the note in this,

and give to the wise and he will become wiser,

and with the help of God, at the farbrengen of the coming Shabbos,

Shabbos Mevarchim HaChodesh,

which is blessed from this Shabbos,

we will explain it.

At the beginning of our Torah portion, Rashi brings several commentaries from the Midrash,

as is already printed in the first printing of Rashi,

and now these commentaries are present in most printed editions

(although in some manuscripts they are not present).

One must understand:

Why does Rashi need to bring several commentaries?

Furthermore:

The essence of Rashi on the Torah is - the plain meaning of the verse,

"I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse,"

and even when Rashi brings a Midrash, it is "an Aggadah that settles the words of the verse,"

and if Rashi needs to reference a Midrash

(which does not settle the verse)

he only references that Midrash

(but he does not bring it down)

- now, why here does Rashi not only reference a Midrash,

but he brings down the commentary of the Midrash,

and in the name of the Midrash,

and more than once?!

Also, one must understand in the body of Rashi's commentary.

The last commentary that Rashi brings

(from the Midrash) is:

"And it is further expounded upon it: 'And Jacob settled.' Jacob sought to settle in tranquility; the agitation of Joseph sprang upon him.

The righteous seek to settle in tranquility.

The Holy One, blessed be He, says: Is it not enough for the righteous what is prepared for them in the World to Come, that they seek to settle in tranquility in this world?"

It is not understood:

Earlier, we learned that our father Jacob says to the Almighty

(in his request "Please save me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau")

that "And You

(the Almighty)

said, 'I will surely do good with you,'"

and simply, this speaks of this world

(because this speaks about Jacob's request to be saved from Esau in this world)

- now, what is the claim of the Almighty against Jacob's request to settle in tranquility in this world: "Is it not enough for the righteous what is prepared for them in the World to Come, that they seek to settle in tranquility in this world,"

to the extent that because of this "the agitation of Joseph sprang upon him"

[and "And You said, 'I will surely do good with you'" Jacob said after he feared that sin might cause "to be delivered into the hand of Esau,"

consequently, one cannot answer that "I will surely do good" in this world speaks before the sin,

as opposed to after the sin, he did not have a promise]?!

And as will be explained at the next farbrengen.

In the notes of the father on the Zohar of our Torah portion - where he also explains the difference between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud - he focuses on what is stated in the Zohar page 99 - "He set a boundary for darkness" - side a:

"Rabbi Chiyya when he came from there to the land of Israel studied Torah until his face shone like the sun

(in the example "the face of Moses was like the face of the sun"),

and when they stood before him all those who toil in Torah he would say this one toils in Torah for its own sake and this one does not toil for its own sake,

and he prayed for the one who toils for its own sake that it should be thus continually etc.,

and he prayed for the one who does not toil in it for its own sake that he should come to toil in it for its own sake etc.,

one day he saw a certain student who was toiling in Torah and his face was pale,

he said certainly this one is contemplating sin,

he took him before him and drew him with words of Torah until his spirit settled within him etc."

Rabbi Chiyya was toiling with him and brought him close until he caused him to repent etc.

And the father explains this according to Kabbalah.

He does not, however, explain the lesson from this in the service of G-d for students of the Zohar in general,

and in particular for students of the Zohar with the notes,

and in particular that the notes are based on Chassidus,

and in particular a lesson connected with Yud-Tes Kislev,

because the note on the Zohar of Parshat Vayeishev comes during the season of Yud-Tes Kislev,

the New Year for Chassidus,

when "the light and vitality of our soul was given to us" - there must be from this a lesson in the spreading of the wellsprings outward.

And through the fact that one adds more in the spreading of the wellsprings outward - this hastens further the "Achishenah",

and the actual fulfillment of the request of Jacob to dwell in tranquility,

in the time when there will be fulfilled the "until Your Master comes to Seir",

"and the kingdom shall be the L-rd's",

in the true and complete redemption,

speedily in our days, literally.

His Holiness the Rebbe, may he live for many good years, began to sing "Nyet nyet nikavo".

Afterward he said:

Those who need to make a final blessing,

will certainly make a final blessing.

After the afternoon prayer he began to sing "And You said I will surely do good with you etc."