English translation — שיחת ש"פ בא, ג' שבט ה'תשד"מ^*

There are several reasons for this gathering:

It is Shabbat Parshat Bo

(which occurs in the month of Shevat)

— the day of the histalkus and hillula of the Rebbe, my father-in-law, the Rebbe

(the successor of the first of the Nesi’im of Chabad,

the Alter Rebbe)

from the perspective of the days of the week and the Torah portions,

since his histalkus was on the holy Shabbat of Parshat Bo,

as is known.

As discussed many times, although most festivals are fixed according to the days of the month,

and that is the main thing—there is also significance in the day of the week and the Torah portion.

In addition to this:

The day of his histalkus from the perspective of the days of the month

(which is currently the main observance of the day of histalkus,

like most festivals)

—the tenth of Shevat—is blessed by this Shabbat. For from Shabbat all the days of the coming week are blessed,

including the seventh day,

which in this year is the tenth of Shevat.

For it would be strange to say that the blessing of Shabbat, from which all days are blessed, applies only to the six weekdays and not to the following Shabbat,

i.e., that specifically the day of Shabbat does not receive a blessing from the preceding Shabbat!

Rather, certainly Shabbat also receives the blessing from the previous Shabbat. For Shabbat blesses all of creation, including the concept of time,

and the entire order of the times of the week is seven days

(not six days).

And this is also understood from what is explained in the revealed aspect of Torah,

and all the more so in the inner aspect of Torah,

the greatness of the concept of blessing

(from the term “drawing down”²)

—one cannot say that the blessing of Shabbat is only for the six weekdays,

and not for the following Shabbat. On the contrary, it is logical:

Since the weekdays receive a blessing from the previous Shabbat,

all the more so does the day of Shabbat

(which is a day superior to a weekday)

receive the blessing.

It is true that Shabbat has a blessing of its own from the Most High. The source of blessings—“And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it”³—but one cannot say that Shabbat has only that blessing,

but the blessing from which the previous Shabbat blesses all days,

which itself comes from “And He blessed… and sanctified it,”

Shabbat does not have.

And although “a candle in the daytime—what benefit does it provide?”⁴,

one could say that on Shabbat the main emphasis is on the blessing of the Holy One, blessed be He

(“And He blessed… and sanctified it”),

whereas the blessing from the previous Shabbat is “a candle in the daytime,”

and in any case, two hundred is better than one hundred

(unlike the weekdays which have only the blessing from Shabbat)

—the meaning of “a candle in the daytime—what benefit does it provide?” is not that the “candle” has no existence,

rather, certainly the “candle” exists,

only with regard to human benefit,

“a candle in the daytime—what benefit does it provide?”;

but when one is not speaking about human benefit,

as in relation to mitzvot, for “mitzvot were not given for benefit,”⁵

the existence of the “candle” is present just as the existence of the “daytime” is present.

And in addition to this, and primarily:

There is room to discuss whether the blessing from Shabbat

(from which all days are blessed)

is in the category of a “candle” relative to the “daytime” of Shabbat’s own blessing

(“And He blessed… and sanctified”).

And perhaps this is not in the category of a “candle”—because the Most High established in the order of creation,

that in addition to the blessing that a thing has of its own,

from the source of blessings—in our case,

the blessing that Shabbat has of its own,

“And He blessed… and sanctified it,”

“it is inherently sanctified”⁶—the Most High desires that it also be blessed with additional blessings from the order of hishtalshelus,

from the previous Shabbat and the like.

As we see this in several matters. Beginning with this very matter:

The first day of the week

(and similarly the other days of the week)

certainly receives a blessing from the source of blessings

(the Most High).

Nevertheless, the Most High established that in addition to this, the first day should also receive the blessing from the preceding Shabbat,

from which all days are blessed.

In addition to this, each day has another additional blessing—the blessing of Shabbat Mevarchim Rosh Chodesh.

That is, in addition to the blessing that each day of the month has of its own,

and the blessing of Shabbat from which the days of the week are blessed, it also has the blessing of the month on Shabbat Mevarchim which blesses Rosh Chodesh

(and from this comes the blessing for all the days of the month)

with all six expressions.

And in addition to this, there is another blessing—from Rosh Hashanah,

which blesses all the days of the year.

From this we see how the Most High desired that in addition to the blessing from the source of blessings, every matter should have additional blessings.

From all this it follows that this Shabbat blesses the following Shabbat—the tenth of Shevat. This further connects the Shabbat with the day of the hillula of the tenth of Shevat.

In addition to this, a third matter comes

(which connects this Shabbos with Asara B'Shevat):

All Shabbosos of the year are connected to each other

(therefore they are all called "Shabbos Bereishis").

And on every Shabbos we say "Mizmor Shir L'Yom HaShabbos"⁷ as Adam HaRishon said on the first Shabbos Bereishis.⁸

The connection of all Shabbosos is particularly in the matter of time — because each Shabbos concludes the order of times of a week,

as known from the responsum of the Rashba⁹ that there are seven days of the cycle

(not six days of the cycle).

And as explained in Chassidic discourses,

and particularly from the Alter Rebbe¹⁰

(brought in the maamarim of the Baal HaHilula¹¹),

that although superficially from Maaseh Bereishis until now tens of thousands of days have passed without interruption,

this is without interruption in externality,

but in internality,

each Shabbos concludes the order of times and becomes an aliyah above time,

and afterwards a new order of times begins. Therefore after Shabbos, Sunday begins again.

Consequently, this Shabbos is connected and becomes — one thing

(in several essential matters)

with the coming Shabbos — Asara B'Shevat.

Based on this, it is understood that the printings of the Tanya are connected specifically with this Shabbos:

Because the Tanya is the foundation¹² and the Written Torah¹³ of Chabad Chassidus,

which the Alter Rebbe founded,

and the Baal HaHilula of Yud Shevat

(the coming Shabbos),

whose histalkus was on Shabbos Parshas Bo,

is his successor.

And the Baal HaHilula brought about that the dissemination of the wellsprings outward

(including and particularly the book of Tanya)

should be in the broadest manner. And included in this is also — when one prints the Tanya in every place where there is a settlement of Jews — this is a true matter of the dissemination of the wellsprings outward:

One disseminates Chabad Chassidus,

which brings down general Chassidus,

the wellsprings of the Baal Shem Tov,

in a manner of "yisparnun minei"¹⁴ in every place and outward where Jews are found.

Also the daily Chumash lesson of this day

(as known from the teaching of the Alter Rebbe¹⁵ regarding living with the times — with the weekly parshah and the day)

— from Shvii until the conclusion of Parshas Bo — teaches and enlivens,

a life that is connected with Chabad Chassidus and the Nesi'im of Chabad.

The content and general point of today's Chumash lesson is about tefillin

(and there stand the first four parshiyos of the Torah¹⁶ and consequently¹⁷ first also in level — the parshiyos in tefillin).

What is the connection of tefillin with

(the Nesi'im of)

Chabad Chassidus?

One need not think on one's own,

rather this is understood based on what the Alter Rebbe himself writes regarding Chabad Chassidus:

The entirety of the matter of Chabad Chassidus is explained in the book of Tanya of the Alter Rebbe

(the Written Torah of Chassidus).

In this book itself there are fifty-three chapters. But on the title page of the book the Alter Rebbe writes what is the content of the entire book

(Likkutei Amarim),

that it is "founded on the verse *¹⁷ 'Ki karov eilecha hadavar me'od b'ficha uvilvavcha la'asoso,'

to explain well how it is very close in a long and short way, b'ezras Hashem."

The entirety of Chabad Chassidus is to explain how the "davar" — which refers to "hamitzvah hazos"¹⁸,

and its inner content is to become one with the Above — is "karov eilecha...

me'od b'ficha uvilvavcha la'asoso,"

in thought

(bilvavcha)

speech

(b'ficha)

and action

(la'asoso).

Here it speaks about one point — "hadavar"

("hamitzvah hazos"),

and how it is "karov eilecha...

me'od" in

(all three matters of)

thought, speech, and action. Not

(only)

as they are three things,

each one by itself — rather how the "davar" is present in thought, speech, and action,

until in a manner — all together.

In thought, speech, and action, each one of them includes the other two

(as explained in Iggeres HaKodesh *¹⁸)

— there is thought, speech, and action in thought itself,

and so on in the other two;

but in our context,

"b'ficha uvilvavcha la'asoso" speaks about thought, speech, and action in their simple sense).

And this matter — how all these three matters of thought, speech, and action

("b'ficha uvilvavcha la'asoso")

become unified — is seen

(primarily)

in the mitzvah of tefillin,

"hukashah kol haTorah"

(the mitzvos)

"l'tefillin"¹⁹ — the matter of tefillin must descend into all the mitzvos:

It is known what the Bach writes²⁰ that regarding three mitzvos the intention of the mitzvah is a part of the fulfillment of the action of the mitzvah:

The mitzvah of sukkah,

the mitzvah of tzitzis, and the mitzvah of tefillin.

And based on this, he explains why the Tur brings in the laws of Sukkah the verse ²⁰ "so that your generations may know etc." ²¹,

even though "it is not his way in this composition to explain the intention of any verse in the Torah etc.",

because in this mitzvah the intention is a part of the mitzvah,

and "he has not fulfilled the mitzvah properly if he does not know the intention of the mitzvah of Sukkah according to its simple meaning etc."

And likewise in the laws of Tzitzit

(siman 8)

the Tur writes "and he should intend when wrapping himself that the Omnipresent commanded us etc.",

and likewise in the laws of Tefillin

(siman 25)

he writes "and he should intend when laying them that the Omnipresent commanded us to lay etc.",

"which he did not do in the rest of the laws, for he did not write that one should intend any intention in the performance of the mitzvah, because one who fulfills the mitzvah according to its law fulfills his obligation even if he had no intention."

That is, although in general the main thing is the action of the mitzvah,

and one who intends all the intentions but does not perform the action of the mitzvah,

does not fulfill his obligation ²². And even though prayer without intention is like a body without a soul ²³,

nevertheless the body exists,

and one who performed a mitzvah and did not intend in his heart fulfills his obligation post facto etc., except etc. ²²

[And on the other hand, there are mitzvot which are primarily in thought (and intention) — love of Hashem,

love of Israel and the like)

— but in these three mitzvot they come together,

and the intention is a part of the obligation to fulfill the mitzvah.

And together with this, in these three mitzvot there is also the blessing over the mitzvah

(in speech,

"in your mouth").

There are mitzvot for which one does not recite a blessing,

for example the mitzvah of charity ²⁴

(and one of the reasons for this:

because one must have the actual fulfillment of the mitzvah of charity,

one does not want to delay it even for a moment by the fact that beforehand the one performing the mitzvah would need to recite a blessing with intentions etc.,

the poor person must have the charity immediately when he comes to take it).

That is, in these three mitzvot there is "in your mouth and in your heart to do it" all together,

and as the fulfillment of the mitzvah

("the thing"):

"in your mouth" — the blessing over the mitzvah,

"in your heart" — the intention of the mitzvah,

and "to do it" — the action of the mitzvah itself:

wearing Tzitzit,

laying Tefillin,

sitting in the Sukkah — and as above, here they all come unified,

because a part of the action of the mitzvah is the intention of the mitzvah and the blessing over the mitzvah

[unlike by other mitzvot, these three matters of the blessing over the mitzvah,

the intention of the mitzvah and the action of the mitzvah ²⁵ are three separate things].

And in these three mitzvot themselves — the matter of "for the thing is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart to do it" is emphasized primarily in Tefillin:

Sukkah is only once a year

(indeed for seven days,

but only once a year beginning from the 15th of the month of Tishrei until after the seven days).

Tzitzit is an obligation of the garment

(the clothing)

(not an obligation of the person) ²⁶,

if one does not have a four-cornered garment one is not obligated in the mitzvah of Tzitzit and one does not need to pursue it to seek it

(except "in a time of wrath") ²⁷.

But Tefillin is every day of the weekdays ²⁸,

and an obligation of the person,

one must always fulfill the mitzvah,

and one is obligated to "pursue" to fulfill it.

Another point in this:

The needs of a person are divided into dwelling, clothing and food ²⁹

(which becomes blood and flesh like his flesh ³⁰).

And it can be said that these three mitzvot correspond to these three:

Sukkah is — dwelling

(only — a temporary dwelling,

not a permanent dwelling).

Tzitzit — clothing. And Tefillin

(obligation of the person)

corresponds to food which becomes blood and flesh like his flesh of that person.

Based on this, the inner connection of Tefillin

(the point of today's Chumash lesson)

with Chassidus and the Nesi'im of Chabad,

including the Baal HaHilula of the 10th of Shevat, is understood.

Continuing from the above reasons for the farbrengen in connection with the emphasis on the Nesi'im and Chassidus of Chabad

(the Baal HaHilula of the 10th of Shevat,

and beginning from the Alter Rebbe),

and especially as emphasized in Tanya

(the matter of "for the thing is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart to do it")

— there is another reason for the farbrengen {and therefore they did not wait with the farbrengen until the following week — the 10th of Shevat itself — as it would have needed to be according to the usual custom,

rather they held a farbrengen also on this Shabbat]:

On this Shabbat, the most important guests arrived who brought with them Tanyas that were printed through their efforts in various places ³¹

(in Meron and in several other places).

What then, that regarding ordinary guests it is "greater is the hospitality to guests than receiving the Divine Presence"³² — all the more so regarding such most important guests,

who exerted themselves with their bodies and their money,

and certainly — with their souls,

in the printing of these Tanya books.

And when one connects it with a farbrengen, it has the advantage

(as the Baal HaHilula transmitted in the name of the Alter Rebbe³³),

that this accomplishes "more than the angel Michael can accomplish." Because the Supreme One sees how His children stand in unity, etc.

(with the specific expressions thereof).

And may it be His will that through the dissemination and printing of the Tanya book in every place — which book is founded on the verse "For the matter is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it" — this will further hasten that very soon — "very near" indeed,

"now" — may there be the "very near to you the matter,"

"the word of Hashem — this is the end"³⁴,

"in your mouth and in your heart, to do it,"

in actual deed

(to do it),

with the coming of Mashiach our righteousness,

and with joy and a good heart.

One should connect the aforementioned reasons for the farbrengen

(in connection with Chabad Chassidus)

also with the daily portion of Tehillim of this day — the 3rd of Shevat

(as instructed by the Baal HaHilula³⁵,

which originates from the time of the Alter Rebbe,

that each day one should recite the daily portion of Tehillim as divided according to the days of the month):

The beginning of the Tehillim portion is³⁶ about the song of David "on the day that Hashem delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul",

and the end of the chapter *³⁶ is "He magnifies the salvations of His king and does kindness to His anointed, to David and to his seed forever." And the end of the entire Tehillim portion is³⁷ "For to Hashem is the kingdom, and He rules over the nations, etc. Seed shall serve Him; it shall be recounted of the Lord to the generation,

they shall come and declare His righteousness to a people that shall be born, for He has done."

(That is, that one will tell everyone,

the entire generation,

about His righteousness — the wonders that the Supreme One "has done").

And the explanation:

The intent of the deliverance of David by Hashem "from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul" — "from the hand of all his enemies" refers to gentiles,

and "from the hand of Saul",

refers to a Jew,

which in a particular sense is even worse than gentiles

(therefore it comes afterwards as a separate category)

— the intent in this deliverance is,

not only that there remains a deliverance,

but that the enemies and Saul become transformed into helpers and assistants.

That is, not only itkafya,

but it'hapcha. As discussed at length in a previous farbrengen³⁸ regarding the matter "Binyamin is a wolf that tears"³⁹,

and also in connection with "Saul"

(as it is stated here the deliverance "from the hand of Saul"),

that the intent is not only itkafya but it'hapcha.

And in this are the two extremes

(as emphasized at the end of the Tehillim portion):

On one side it is said that the Supreme One does wonders and righteousness

(supernal above),

and on the other side this is "He has done"

("they shall come and declare His righteousness, etc., for He has done"),

that is, it comes down into actual deed

(which is specifically relevant)

in the lowest world

(lowest below).

And the matter of it'hapcha from the lowest extreme to good and holiness — is also emphasized in the word "yisupar"

("Seed shall serve Him; it shall be recounted of the Lord to the generation"):

It is explained in Chassidus

(in the explanation of the words⁴⁰)

in the explanation of the matter "the heavens recount"⁴¹

(which was also said today in prayer),

that "misaprim" is not only from the language of telling,

but also from the language of sapphire stone⁴²,

"like the work of sapphire"⁴³,

"shining and sparkling, etc."⁴⁴,

that it shines and radiates. This also includes the matter of it'hapcha:

That from "levanah" of the other side

(brick in Egypt),

becomes "like the work of sapphire"⁴³,

the Throne of Glory⁴⁴

(of holiness)

— "And they saw the God of Israel, and under His feet was like the work of sapphire",

and "they beheld God, and they ate and drank"⁴⁵.

And the perfection of it'hapcha of "enemies" and "Saul" will be in the future redemption — "He magnifies the salvations of His king and does kindness to His anointed",

David the king, Mashiach.

And the point in this Tehillim portion is also in the manner of the content of the redemption from Egypt — whose beginning and essence is discussed in our parshah

[In Parshas Va'eira the discussion is about the promise and tidings of the redemption from Egypt;

In Parshas Beshalach the discussion is about details thereof.

However, in our parshah the discussion is about the totality and essence of the matter of the redemption from Egypt]:

The redemption from Egypt was a deliverance by the Holy One, blessed be He, "from the hand of all his enemies." Until in a manner of it'hapcha — "with a strong hand he will drive them out of his land"

[expression of the verse in the previous parshah⁴⁶ — but there is the tidings which takes place in actuality in our parshah].

And the redemption from Egypt

(“from the hand of all his enemies”)

was in a manner of wonders and miracles,

signs and wonders,

which the Most High performed “in the midst of the land” — “And I will set apart on that day the land of Goshen, upon which My people stand, etc., so that you may know that I am Hashem in the midst of the land”⁴⁷.

And likewise we find several times in Egypt the emphasis on “and I will set apart,” etc.⁴⁸,

which are the two extremes mentioned above

(in the lesson of Tehillim):

the wonders of the Holy One, blessed be He

(a matter of the highest level),

and this is drawn down “in the midst of the land,”

to the lowest level.

Likewise the wonders and righteousness of the Holy One, blessed be He

(the highest level),

and this is what “He did,”

i.e., it comes down in actual deed

(which specifically applies)

in the lowest land

(the lowest level).

And the redemption from Egypt in a manner of wonders is also connected to the future redemption,

as it is written⁴⁹ “As in the days of your exodus from the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders” for the future,

[in addition to the inner interpretation of this⁵⁰,

that the wonders of the future will be wonders even relative to the wonders in Egypt,

it also has the simple interpretation,

that just as “I will show him wonders” as in the days of your exodus from the land of Egypt,

so too will it be in the future)

— likewise “He magnifies the salvations of His king and performs kindness for His anointed.”

(In the lesson of Tehillim).

Likewise was it in the redemption of the Alter Rebbe

(Yud-Tes Kislev)

— when the main matter of the spreading of the wellsprings outward began⁵¹:

“Hashem saved him, etc., from the hand of Saul,”

as is known that the imprisonment occurred

(in a natural way)

not through “his enemies”

(gentiles),

but through a Jew,

“the hand of Saul” — and the addition of “from the hand of Saul” to “from the hand of all his enemies,”

because he pursued him more than all⁵¹,

worse than gentiles,

Heaven forbid and Heaven forbid to say that the Jew had anything that is a connection or a likeness, any whatsoever, even to Saul — only that he pursued him more.

And the redemption was in a manner — in the language of the Alter Rebbe⁵² that they saw the wonders of Hashem

(the highest level)

in the land,

in deed

(the lowest extreme),

“Hashem did wondrously and greatly in the land”

(like “And I will set apart on that day the land of Goshen, upon which My people stand, etc., so that you may know that I am Hashem in the midst of the land” in the Exodus from Egypt),

“all the peoples of the land” saw the redemption through the Holy One, blessed be He.

And these are the two matters at the conclusion of the lesson of Tehillim — that they tell about the wonders of Hashem that “He did,”

in actual deed in the lowest land.

And likewise the matter of the spreading of the wellsprings outward

(which primarily began with the redemption of the Alter Rebbe)

is the drawing down of the highest level in Torah

(wellsprings of water — there is no water but Torah⁵²)

into the outside,

“He did” in the lowest land,

so that it becomes “Hashem saved…

from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul,”

and through this one opens up in the outside until — the transformation of “outside.”

Like the aforementioned that from “brick” becomes “sapphire brick,”

“and they saw the God of Israel and they ate and they drank” — which is the matter of Chabad,

that the wellsprings of the inner dimension of Torah

(“and they saw the God of Israel”)

descend into an inner dimension,

“and they ate and they drank.”

Until the perfection of the transformation — for the future.

As is known from the letter of the Baal Shem Tov⁵³ that through “your wellsprings will spread outward” — which began primarily with the redemption of the Alter Rebbe — “the king Mashiach will come” — the matter of “He magnifies the salvations of His king and performs kindness for His anointed.”

And based on this, the connection of the printing of the books of Tanya with the present day

(3 Shevat)

— according to the lesson of Tehillim of this day,

because “your wellsprings will spread outward” through the redemption of the Alter Rebbe begins primarily with the book of Tanya,

the Written Torah of Chassidus.

Based on the above, an additional instruction is understood in connection with the printing of the books of Tanya — a simple matter,

and perhaps one would have grasped it on one’s own anyway],

and just as they previously urged regarding the printing of Tanya,

“they urge a person before the act and they again urge him at the time of the act”⁵⁴ regarding this matter:

Since the intention of printing the Tanyas in every place where there is a Jewish settlement is the matter of spreading the Torah and spreading the wellsprings

(of Torah)

outward. And the reason

(one of the reasons)

why they print it in every place is,

because when the Jews in that place see that this is a book printed in their own place,

in their own four cubits⁵⁴,

that it is connected to them,

it gives them more vitality and responsibility to study in it.

It is certain that in addition to printing the Tanya in that place,

one should

(also)

study from the book in that place

(where it was printed),

as the Alter Rebbe wanted—that one should "do" in his book of Tanya. And this study in a manner that the Baal HaHilula emphasizes—that the concept teaches him.

Regarding which chapter and concept one should begin the study of the book of Tanya there—each place should begin the study in the place in Tanya that his heart desires⁵⁵. And if there is a congregation—according to the majority of the congregation⁵⁵.

And in addition to this

(that one should study it in the place of printing)

—one should specifically leave in that place a significant number of copies of the Tanyas,

and also leave of the Tanyas with the rabbi,

leader,

public activist, etc. in that place,

and especially then it will bring an increase of effort on their part that there should be a proper continuation,

they will study in it and study with others, etc.

And one mitzvah brings another mitzvah⁵⁶—the study in the book of Tanya

will bring that the students conduct themselves in accordance with what is written inside the book. In addition to what this will bring to an increase in Torah study in general—as explained in Tanya the greatness of the matter.

Furthermore—the book of Tanya

(like every part of Torah)

is connected with the entire Torah,

and the very fact that when you grasp a part of it you grasp all of it⁵⁷,

As is known that in addition to the Torah having within it several parts,

"Threescore are queens, and fourscore concubines, and maidens without number"⁵⁸ "longer than the earth and broader than the sea"⁵⁹—the entire Torah is one Torah,

one point⁵⁹.

Even in the places where the Tanyas are printed,

but they are bound elsewhere—one can study in the unbound booklets.

And to note—that thus began the study of Tanya

(and Chassidus Chabad in general)

from study in booklets,

as the Alter Rebbe writes in the "Introduction of the Compiler" at the beginning of the book of Tanya,

that previously "Likkutei Amarim" was "booklets" and thus they studied in them,

and afterwards they brought the "booklets" "to the printing press" and printed them

(and bound)⁶⁰.

If one has left the place where Tanyas were printed,

and for whatever reason one did not study in the book in the place of printing—one should travel there,

at least one of those who endeavored in the printing,

and there study together with the residents of the place in the book,

and as above—leave a significant number of copies for the residents of the place.

And on the contrary—then there will be and will be the effect in a manner of double to the remedy⁶⁰

(since immediately after the printing they did not study in it).

And may it be His will that just as they printed the Tanyas until now and it was in a manner and with success beyond what was expected that it would be so

(in quantity and quality)

—from them they shall see and so shall many do,

that they should continue to print Tanyas in every place where it has not yet been printed until now and there are Jews there.

And there is an advantage in this that is not in that:

Those who were the first to print the Tanyas according to the aforementioned proposal-request have the great advantage and merit that they "opened"⁶¹ this path,

for "all beginnings are difficult"⁶² etc.,

And each of those who will continue to print Tanyas—an individual or a single group—does not have the difficulties of difficult beginnings,

and the accomplishment connected with this,

because the path has already been opened—but he has the advantage that he can accomplish more than the first. Like the parable of the dwarf

(individual)

on the shoulders of a giant

(many)⁶³,

because he comes

(not separately from the predecessors and does other matters, but)

in continuation and addition to the predecessors,

consequently he has the powers of all the predecessors,

he can accomplish more than the predecessors.

And it can be said that this is along the lines of the explanation regarding the generation of the heels of Mashiach,

that there are two extremes⁶⁴ in this:

They are in the aspect of "eikev" (heel),

the last,

and "the generation is worthy"⁶⁵

(in simplicity);

on the other hand they say that they are the heels of Mashiach,

and specifically they will merit to bring Mashiach,

they hear the footsteps of Mashiach of the heels of Mashiach

("Behold, He comes, etc."⁶⁶)

—how does one thing reconcile with the other?

And it can be said that this depends on that,

as we see it by a heel literally:

A heel has two matters:

The heel is the lowest level in the body. On the other hand - the heel is the only part of the body upon which the entire body stands,

the head and heart and liver etc.

And specifically the heel supports the entire body. And when the body,

including the head etc.,

needs to go and ascend "from strength to strength"⁶⁷ - the heel is the one that carries the entire body.

And these are interdependent:

Why can the heel support and carry the entire body - because it is the heel and the lowest level in the body,

i.e., it does not support etc. the body in a manner that it proclaims "my power and the might of my hand"⁶⁸ and it is distinguished etc.,

rather it feels that it comes as a continuation

(and is the lowest level)

of the other parts of the body,

therefore the heel becomes like a dwarf standing on a giant,

it has all the powers of the entire body.

And likewise regarding the generation of the heels of Mashiach:

Because they come

(not by their own power alone, but)

as a continuation and addition to all the previous generations,

the heel becomes like a dwarf standing on a giant,

they have all the powers.

Based on this there is an additional explanation on the question of the Shelah⁶⁹

(which was discussed at the previous farbrengen⁷⁰)

"This matter that our Sages said⁷¹ 'The Holy One, blessed be He, does not despise the prayer of the many' is seemingly perplexing, for we see with our eyes that it is not so. For the prayer of eighteen [blessings] all of Israel prays three times every day,

and many times in the prayer redemption is mentioned,

'Look upon our affliction etc., the Branch [of David] etc.,'

and this has been for more than one thousand six hundred and fifty-four years that we are in exile and our prayer is nullified."

In addition to the explanation that the prayer is fulfilled spiritually,

one can say according to the above that the prayers of the Jews

(for the redemption)

throughout all the generations of exile are fulfilled also physically - as the Alter Rebbe explains in Iggeret HaKodesh⁷² that a prayer is certainly fulfilled

(without any doubt):

Because that which the generation of the heels of Mashiach brings the redemption through their service and prayer

(for the redemption)

is not by their own power,

but as a continuation of the service and prayers of all the previous generations.

That is, that every prayer of every Jew throughout all the generations of exile brought the redemption closer

(physically),

and with the combination of all the services and prayers together - of this generation and previous generations - one brings the redemption. And were it not for the prayers of the previous generations - who knows how much longer the exile would have been drawn out, Heaven forbid!

It turns out that the prayer of all Israel throughout all the generations is fulfilled and effects physically,

but not necessarily immediately after the prayer,

sometimes it is fulfilled after a period of time.

On the other hand, however, it is understood that there is a difference between the prayers in the previous generations and the prayers in this generation,

the heels of Mashiach:

The effect

(physically)

of those prayers is not immediate,

rather it takes a span of generations

(until the redemption comes into actuality);

but in this generation there is no longer time to wait,

because it is already "the end of days"

(the heels of Mashiach),

therefore the prayer

(for the redemption)

works "now",

so that the redemption comes "now"!

Even in the time of the Gemara it states⁷³ that "all the deadlines have passed and the matter depends only on repentance."

All the more so now - as the Mitteler Rebbe writes⁷⁴ that now one has already passed through also the birth pangs of Mashiach. And afterwards the Baal HaHilula said⁷⁵ that it is already "immediately for redemption." And if one asked that there must be repentance

("the matter depends only on repentance")

- he declared that it is already also "immediately for repentance."

There is nothing more than that "the hand of Saul" interfered,

the hand of a Jew,

and not Saul as he is "the anointed of Hashem"⁷⁶,

but as he opposes David, King Mashiach,

and does not want Mashiach to come, Heaven forbid!...

The Almighty does not take away the free choice of a Jew,

therefore if a Jew locks himself in that he wants to push off the coming of Mashiach - the Almighty says

(as it were):

If you want it so - so it will be, Heaven forbid!

And they further connected it with flattery,

and the other of the four groups⁷⁷ Heaven forbid,

that others pat him on the shoulder and flatter him etc.!

It is already stated what happens to a flatterer - "Whoever flatters his friend eventually falls into his hand"⁷⁸...

It is not stated that the end of the flatterer is that he descends from his level,

or that he becomes subjugated to the one he flatters,

but rather "the end falls into his [domain]",

i.e., into his possession:

he becomes that one's Canaanite slave,

not a Hebrew slave who "acquires a master for himself",

but rather he loses his entire own existence,

and becomes in his hand,

in his possession,

of the one he flatters, heaven forbid!

And even worse:

The flatterer may think that he has accomplished something and that he is an existence and a great existence etc. - when in truth he is entirely in the hand of the one he flatters! Which is the greatest fall that can possibly be...

Nevertheless, may it be His will that regardless of whether one deserves it or not - there should still be during the time of exile "and for all the children of Israel there was light in their dwellings",

as it was in the Egyptian exile,

until the light illuminates Jews not only in relation to themselves,

but also in relation to their connection with the Egyptians,

because the light in their dwellings was - "that the Israelites searched and saw all their vessels

(of the Egyptians)

- so that afterwards they could fulfill the command of 'and you shall empty out Egypt' - and when they left

(from Egypt)

and they would ask them and they would say we have nothing in our possession,

he would say to him I saw it in your house and in such and such a place it is".

From this one sees how even during the time of exile when Jews tell the Egyptian gentiles - the truth,

it affects them. For ostensibly - for an Egyptian it is not such a great thing to lie,

when the Jew told him "I saw it in your house and in such and such a place it is",

that Egyptian could have said that the Jew did not see the vessels - nevertheless one sees that when a Jew tells the Egyptian the truth with the strength of the "Pride of Jacob",

it affects the Egyptian,

because the Jew tells it to him in order to fulfill the command of Hashem "and you shall empty out Egypt".

From this there is also a lesson in our time regarding Jews how they should speak with Egyptians literally

(in our generation):

One must speak with them with the full force of the "Pride of Jacob". Then one will certainly affect them.

Not like those who have fallen before gentiles and gentile-ness. And because of this they gave over to the Egyptians entire territories that pertain to the security of the land together with oil wells,

which had brought in a multitude of money to the Land of Israel and also served as weapons and helped the security of the land. And what did one receive for this...

Nothing more than a promise,

that the Egyptians will not wage war!

One has already seen in the past - not once in a particular place and situation,

but many times - what such an approach brings:

In the Middle Ages,

and in the years 5408 and 5409 etc. there were so many cases where gentiles promised Jews that they would not bother them,

but in order for the Jews to prove that they have a good relationship with the gentiles,

therefore the Jews should give up their weapons. One saw in practice what came of this for those who gave up the weapons.

But those who did not let themselves be fooled and held onto their weapons - succeeded. And also in those cases where the gentiles prevailed,

at least a portion of the Jews were saved and could flee and so forth,

and even if not - they could at least take revenge on the gentiles. And although Jews are not eager for revenge - it helped - so that "they will hear and fear" that other gentiles should be afraid to bother them.

Nevertheless, one has now not learned from experience,

and one gave over to Egypt "Sinai" with the oil wells,

weapons of the Land of Israel,

relying on their promise! And one even boasts about it and makes banquets etc.!

And this caused that hundreds of Jewish victims should fall,

Hashem will avenge their blood...!

And that terrorists should have even more audacity to do what they do - both terrorists who come from Egypt and from other places,

until in Egypt they kiss with them etc.

Because when the gentiles see that the Jews give away from their weapons etc.,

it gives them more strength to do all these deeds, heaven forbid,

"trouble shall not arise twice",

as it was in all the times in the Middle Ages etc.!

Not like those who want to argue that so "few" victims fell because of giving back Sinai and the "peace" agreement with Egypt,

but just the opposite:

If they had not given back "Sinai" with the oil wells - far fewer Jewish victims would have fallen...

Each one of them is a "world full",

and with the kindnesses of G-d they "got out" with "only" hundreds of victims,

such a getting out is alas and woe...!

And all this - because there are such Jews who openly lack the "Gaon Yaakov",

or moreover:

They think that their "Gaon Yaakov" consists of being subjugated to gentiles and gentility,

and because of this they endanger Jews throughout the Land of Israel, may G-d forbid!

You lack the "Gaon Yaakov" and cannot ingratiate yourself with gentiles and gentility - resign from public office! Sit at home and do not endanger other Jews!

So that my words should not be interpreted as meaning this or something else from before - I explain explicitly that I mean what was done this year,

from the beginning of the year 5744,

until the last days,

yesterday and the day before yesterday

(even though only a few months of the year have passed).

And there is no need to elaborate on a distressing matter,

not only a frightening matter but a distressing matter...

And may it be His will that also in this generation there should be "with a strong hand he will drive them out of his land" by Egypt themselves,

that the Egyptians will drive out Jews and not want to accept their advice to be subjugated to the Egyptians.

As known the question:

Why did it have to come to "with a strong hand he will drive them out of his land"?

But there is a reality that a Jew may lack his "Gaon Yaakov" and he may not want to leave Egypt, may G-d forbid,

because he is subjugated to the gentile and to gentility.

How indeed does such a thing come about? Does it come because of the matter of free choice:

Because of free choice, every matter of holiness must also be in the external.

So just as in holiness there is the matter of transforming darkness into light and bitterness into sweetness,

i.e., not just simple light and sweetness,

but a light and sweetness that is very great

(which comes specifically through the transformation of darkness and bitterness)

- so too must there be something similar in the external

(because of free choice).

Therefore there is a reality that one can delude himself that darkness is light and bitterness is sweetness

(transforming darkness into light and bitterness into sweetness in the external).

He deludes himself that remaining stuck in Egypt is a good thing, may G-d forbid!

Therefore there must be "with a strong hand he will drive them out of their land",

i.e., that the Almighty should make that the external itself should drive out the Jews. And then

(even though initially it comes in the manner of "with a strong hand he will drive them out")

there is truly a transformation

(in holiness),

that Pharaoh

(the external)

himself becomes transformed and it becomes "and it was when Pharaoh sent forth".

And may it be His will that now one should not need to come to this

(that gentiles should drive out the Jews who are subjugated to the gentiles),

because a spirit from on high will be poured upon them,

and those who previously were subjugated to gentiles,

and wanted to delude themselves that one can rely on the promise of the gentiles and one can give them one's own weapon - will come to recognition - as has long been learned from the events of the Middle Ages and the like

(as above)

- that Jews are a single sheep among seventy wolves,

a "single nation scattered and dispersed among the nations",

"single nation" not only from

(Jews of)

this generation,

but "single" from all Jews throughout the generations,

beginning from the Giving of the Torah,

because "there is no death for the community".

And through increasing in Torah and mitzvot and spreading the wellsprings outward in general,

and especially in the matter of love of Israel and charity,

about which it says "Your commandment is exceedingly broad" - one will hasten even more the "I will hasten it" of the true and complete redemption,

And there will be the completeness of the people,

"with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters",

together with the completeness of the Torah and its mitzvot,

including conversion according to halacha,

together with the completeness of the land,

and it will be fulfilled "but the righteous will give thanks to Your name, the upright will dwell in Your presence" in the Third Holy Temple,

Speedily in our days, literally,

and in the manner of "and behold, with the clouds of heaven."

A discourse (similar to a talk)

beginning with the phrase "And it was on the selfsame day."

There still remains to explain several matters from the farbrengen of last Shabbat - the Rashi and notes on the Zohar of the father. And more. And in addition, it is also customary to study a verse in connection with Rashi's commentary in our portion and a matter in the notes on the Zohar of our portion. We will first begin with

(the questions on)

the Rashi in our portion.

In continuation* of the Plague of the Firstborn which is discussed in our portion, it is written: "And against all the children of Israel, no dog shall sharpen its tongue, against man or beast, so that you may know that the Lord distinguishes between Egypt and Israel."

Now, on this there is a "blatant difficulty"

(to which one does not pay attention):

(A) Here it discusses the Plague of the Firstborn - dogs, who mentions them?!

[Perhaps it fits in the Plague of the Wild Beasts,

but not the Plague of the Firstborn).

In a different style:

What is the reason to say that

(were it not for this miracle, one would have said)

since in Egypt the Plague of the Firstborn occurs - the dogs will bark at the Jews,

there will be a miracle that "and against all the children of Israel, no dog shall sharpen its tongue"?!

In Daat Zekeinim from the Baalei Tosafot it is written,

that the miracle of "and against all the children of Israel, no dog shall sharpen its tongue" consists in this,

"Although we say that dogs cry out, the angel of death comes to the city,

and accordingly, it should have cried out at the time of the Plague of the Firstborn,

nevertheless, 'and against all the children of Israel, no dog shall sharpen its tongue.'" But Rashi does not even hint at this).

(B) Furthermore:

Even if one explains the miracle of "against all the children of Israel, no dog shall sharpen its tongue"

(according to the simple meaning)

the question remains:

In what way is this more effective for "so that you may know that the Lord distinguishes between Egypt and Israel" than the Plague of the Firstborn itself

(which is stated before this),

that "all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh

(but not the firstborn of Israel)

and there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there has never been and such as there shall never be again"?!

Also, one must understand

A) The usual term for the barking of a dog is - "nechicha." As it is stated in Isaiah: "The dogs are mute, they cannot bark." And see Targum Yonatan here. Therefore, in this verse as well, the term "no dog barked" should have been used

(instead of an unusual term - "and no dog shall sharpen")?

Rashi indeed explains the meaning of "yacharatz" that it is not ordinary barking,

but "I say that it is an expression of sharpening, etc."

(and he brings several verses for this),

but he does not explain

(apparently)

the essence of the matter, why here it is not ordinary barking,

but "yacharatz"?

In a different style:

According to the verses which Rashi brings, "thoughts of the sharp-witted,"

"a sharp and keen person," etc., the "charitzah" of dogs is stronger and sharper than barking

(ordinary)

- accordingly, the aforementioned question becomes even stronger:

What is the reason that at the time of the Plague of the Firstborn in Egypt, the dogs should not merely bark ordinarily

(barking)

at the Jews,

but bark with sharpness - "yacharatz." And what connection does such sharp barking have with

(the knowledge of)

the Plague of the Firstborn?

In Rashi's commentary itself, one must understand:

B) Why does Rashi quote from the verse all these words "no dog shall sharpen its tongue" - when he is only explaining the word "yacharatz"?

One could possibly say that Rashi quotes the words in accordance with the first verse that he brings

(in his commentary)

"He did not sharpen for the children of Israel, any man, his tongue,"

where it also says "he did not sharpen, etc., his tongue" - but according to this, the question becomes even stronger:

From Rashi's language, "I say that it is an expression of sharpening, etc., and likewise 'he did not sharpen, etc.,' 'then you shall sharpen, etc.,'" it is understood,

that he is not bringing from these verses a proof here,

but he is explaining all these verses according to the interpretation that he states here from his own mind, "I say." It is not understood:

It is understood that Rashi and every commentator

(whether on Chumash,

Mishnah, etc.)

will not explain, bending the

(all)

places after another where the term is found -

(one explains a verse when one studies it).

And especially, adding

(in the entry)

here - because of the verse in Joshua!

With several more precise points in this Rashi.

In the notes on the Zohar of our portion, he addresses the statement of the Zohar: "Because the moon was in a state of defect and was not blessed from the sun and was not illuminated from the sun, as it is said, etc., and it was not illuminated from the Jubilee."

And he explains:

"Regarding the sun, he uses two expressions:

'was blessed,' 'was illuminated,'

and regarding the Jubilee, he uses one expression: 'was illuminated.' And this means that from the sun of Zeir Anpin there are two influences to Malchut:

one in the aspect of internal, the second in the aspect of encompassing,

and according to the law of her food and her garment,

and from the Jubilee of Binah there is only one influence to Malchut, in the aspect of encompassing, etc."

He does not, however, explain how the matter applies to the service of a Jew to serve his Creator,

that Israel are similar to and count like the moon,

relying that one will understand it on his own.

And as will be explained further.

At the farbrengen of the previous Shabbat, they asked in the discourse beginning "He is Aharon and Moshe" the question

(in the Chassidic discourses)

why in the verse regarding the Exodus from Egypt it says "He is Aharon and Moshe,"

when the main Exodus from Egypt was through Moshe,

and regarding the speech to Pharaoh it says "He is Moshe and Aharon,"

when Aharon spoke with Pharaoh. And they explained it according to what is explained in the discourses.

Afterwards, they brought what is found regarding this in the verse "fear a man his father and his mother,"

that in one verse he precedes father to mother

("Honor your father and your mother"),

and in a second verse he precedes mother to father

("A man his mother and his father you shall fear"),

and Rashi explains that this is the matter of changing nature,

and they explained that this is the matter of Chassidus - changing the nature of one's character traits,

even holy character traits.

They asked:

whether this is also an explanation

(additional)

in the precedence of Moshe to Aharon in the speech to Pharaoh and the precedence of Aharon to Moshe in the Exodus from Egypt,

because this is "similar to" the opposite of nature:

that in the speech to Pharaoh

(whose main aspect was through Aharon)

one precedes Moshe to Aharon,

and in the Exodus from Egypt

(whose main aspect was through Moshe)

one precedes Aharon to Moshe.

One cannot, however, say so,

and simply,

because

(in addition to what was written):

Since Moshe had a command from the Almighty to take the Jews out of Egypt and Aharon had a command from God to speak with Pharaoh - it is not possible to say regarding this that Moshe and Aharon should change their mission from the Holy One, blessed be He, due to changing the nature of their character traits!

Last Shabbat, they asked the question why specifically regarding the plague of frogs it says "only in the river they shall remain,"

when all the other plagues ceased after a week - each plague "served for a quarter of a month." And Moshe even emphasizes this, saying it twice.

And they did not then answer the question - due to lack of time and intentionally.

In practice, there was the matter of "transformation":

Just as the previous time no one answered a question that was asked

(and they later became angry and with a great shout why no one had endeavored to answer it),

this time they answered many answers,

but not regarding the question that was asked!

The question was not why Moshe said to Pharaoh "only in the river they shall remain,"

because that is not a question,

simply:

If Moshe had not said it to Pharaoh,

and Pharaoh would later see that "in the river they shall remain,"

Pharaoh would have had a claim and question to Moshe - the very question that was asked at the farbrengen:

All the plagues ceased after seven days,

so why did the plague of frogs remain in the river? And Pharaoh could have thought that it was merely an external reason why it remained in the river. Therefore, Moshe was compelled to tell him that "in the river they shall remain,"

that this was from the outset with intention.

The question was regarding the reality:

Why was the plague of frogs indeed "in the river they shall remain"

(when all the plagues served for a quarter of a month and then ceased)?

And why did Moshe emphasize saying it to Pharaoh twice?

Most of the answers that were given regarding this were according to what is stated in the Midrashim and in the Or HaChaim HaKadosh and the like.

But the question was why Rashi on the Torah does not address it,

whose purpose is the simple meaning of the verse for a child of five studying Scripture,

one cannot answer with an explanation according to the Midrash and according to the commentators on Scripture which are not in the manner of the simple meaning

(but rather in the manner of homiletical interpretation and the like).

Since there was one answer that they tried to respond with that is entirely untenable,

And the question is on the "system" of the booklet where this was printed:

The concept of a "system" is as its name implies - from the term Shulchan Aruch,

as it is written "which you shall set before them - like a set table and prepared for eating before a person":

When one goes to eat on a table,

it is in order to prevent that one should not throw the foods

(fish and the like)

onto the table,

there must be an arrangement of the table,

one must prepare and make sure that the foods are placed in an orderly and prepared manner so that the person can eat them.

Similarly, a "system" must prevent that one should not simply "throw" notes,

but rather one should first review them and prepare them so that they are fitting and ready for print):

They wanted to say that since the Egyptians are accustomed to eating frogs

(may it not be so)

[and it is a question whether perhaps also Jews before the giving of the Torah were permitted in this),

therefore "the frogs that remain" in the river so that the Egyptians could eat them!

Firstly:

If the Egyptians want to eat from the frogs there is no need for "the frogs that remain",

because without that there were a multitude of frogs on dry land,

as it is written "and the frogs died from the houses and from the courtyards and from the fields and they gathered them in heaps upon heaps",

the Egyptians could have eaten from the frogs,

and one does not need to come to the frogs that "the frogs that remain". And then the Egyptians would also have prevented that there should not be "and the land stank" because of the dead frogs,

because they could have eaten the frogs!

But from this very thing that they did not eat the frogs

(and "and the land stank")

it is proven,

that these were such frogs that one cannot eat. Consequently one cannot answer that "the frogs that remain" so that they could eat them.

And further:

Later in the plague of locusts at the time of the cessation of the plague it says "and Hashem turned a very strong west wind and it carried the locusts and thrust them into the Sea of Reeds not one locust remained in all the border of Egypt",

and Rashi explains:

"not one locust remained - even the salted ones that they salted from them".

That is, that the Almighty did not want to leave any locust that the Egyptians could eat. Therefore He took them all away,

even those that the Egyptians salted and placed in a cool place

(similar to a "refrigerator" as it was in that time,

for in Egypt the air is hot...)

- now how can one say that in the plague of frogs it is "the frogs that remain" so that the Egyptians could eat from them?!

Similarly there were several other answers,

and most of them enter into the aforementioned categories - answers according to the homiletic interpretation,

or answers not to the question that was asked,

and so forth.

But since here it is about the plain meaning of Scripture,

and Rashi does not explain at all on "the frogs that remain",

it is understood that the explanation of this according to the plain meaning must be understandable to a five-year-old by himself. Or from what Rashi writes elsewhere.

The explanation of this

(according to the plain meaning)

- Rashi himself prevents

[consequently the "blatant difficulty" why no one caught onto this).

Only a Rashi later,

because the question why in the plague of frogs "the frogs that remain" is answered by the five-year-old to Scripture

(not in its place, but)

only later:

As long as he learned only about the plague of blood and the plague of frogs,

he can still think that what Rashi says in the plague of blood that "the plague lasted a quarter of a month", is

(only in the plague of blood,

but)

not necessarily in all the plagues,

therefore for the time being he has no question why in the plague of frogs "the frogs that remain";

When however he learns further that the plague of lice

(and the rest of the plagues)

also afterwards ceased,

the question arises for him why the plague of frogs is an exception,

Rashi answers him in his commentary in the plague of wild beasts,

at the conclusion of the plague of lice

(when the question is aroused for him):

Rashi writes there:

"And there is a reason in the matter of Aggadah for each and every plague why this one and why that one. In the tactics of wars of kings, He came upon them in the order of royalty, when one besieges a city, first he corrupts its water sources,

and afterwards they blow upon them and sound blasts with shofars to frighten them and to terrify them,

and likewise the frogs croaked and made noise etc."

[And although Rashi concludes "as it is brought in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma" - however since he brings it in his commentary on the Torah, it is understood that this explanation is connected with the plain meaning of the verses. And especially since Rashi writes "as it is brought in the Midrash etc." at the end].

From the two expressions (1)

"to frighten them" (2)

"and to terrify them" it is understood,

that the plague of frogs accomplished two things:

it effected upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians fear and terror.

From this it is understood that it was not sufficient that the plague of frogs accomplish "to terrify them",

rather it also needed that it accomplish "to frighten them". And the reason:

If Pharaoh and the Egyptians would not have fear of the Most High - as Pharaoh said "I do not know the Lord" - then all the other plagues would not have helped,

because since "I do not know the Lord" and he

(and the Egyptians)

has no fear of the Most High,

why should he be affected by the plagues. Therefore the frog needed to effect

(also)

"to frighten them".

From this it is also understood,

that since the fear must remain in Pharaoh and the Egyptians

(because if not, the subsequent plagues will not have any effect)

- therefore

(the plague of)

frogs

(which accomplishes "to frighten them")

must extend not only for a week,

rather have a continuation afterwards.

In order to effect fear in Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

Therefore the plague of frogs was an exception from all the other plagues, that from it remained a continuation afterwards - "they shall remain" - in order to effect "to frighten them":

When Pharaoh would go to the river,

and as it states earlier "Go to Pharaoh in the morning, behold he goes out to the water". "To his privy,

for he made himself a god and said that he does not need to relieve himself, and he rises early and goes out to the Nile and does his needs there",

and likewise the rest of the Egyptians would go to the river,

and there see the frogs that remained from the plague of frogs,

it would effect upon them fear of the Most High,

knowing and remembering the plague of frogs when the frogs came up onto the dry land "and covered the land of Egypt",

"in your house and in your bedroom and on your bed and in the house of your servants and among your people and in your ovens and in your kneading bowls".

And based on this, the difference between the two matters that the plague of frogs accomplished "to frighten them and to terrify them" is understood:

The actual plague of frogs,

when the frogs came up onto the land,

"in your house and in your bedroom etc.",

accomplished "to terrify them" - a terror in the Egyptians,

so that they would become confounded. Afterwards,

after "a full month"

(as with the other plagues),

the plague ceased,

"and the frogs died from the houses etc."

The plague, however, needed to accomplish also a second effect - "to frighten them",

to cast upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians a fear of the Most High, that the fear should continue also further

(because if not, the subsequent plagues will not help)

- therefore

(the plague of)

frogs could not entirely cease and be terminated,

because then they would have no fear;

On the other hand - there cannot be a continuation of the actual plague,

that the frogs should remain in the houses etc.,

because that effects "to terrify them",

and when there is a terror, it is not possible to speak with the person and try to effect something upon him

(in this case - that Pharaoh should release the Jews from Egypt),

because he is confounded,

as is evident tangibly.

So what is the advice for this, that it should be "to frighten them" and not "to terrify them"? The advice is:

That the essence of the plague

(which effects "to terrify them")

was terminated

("and the frogs died from the houses, etc."),

but the frogs remain in one place where they are not actively harmful

(in the Nile),

but where Pharaoh and the Egyptians can see them

(as mentioned, that Pharaoh used to go to the Nile every day),

in order that "they may hear and fear" - forever

[as the concept of "they may hear and fear" is literally in the verse,

that this is drawn out forever],

consequently they will always fear the Almighty,

through their seeing with their physical eyes the frogs - the punishment in potential

(which they had previously received in actuality)

- in the Nile,

and they remind themselves of what the frogs had previously done when they came up upon the land.

And a simple example of this for a child of five studying Scripture:

When one wants a child to study in the "cheder" and not to look aside,

out of the window and the like

[or one pesters and tickles another,

and that one pretends not to notice and continues listening to what is being said,

or he falls asleep,

and afterwards when he wakes up from sleep - he asks "what was that?",

about what was being discussed...)

- the advice for this is,

not that one should whip him the entire time in actuality,

because then one cannot teach him Torah during the action,

since he is flustered

(terror)

from the whipping;

but when a whip hangs on the wall,

he sees the punishment

(in potential),

consequently both things are achieved:

it does not effect any terror upon him,

one can study with him;

on the other hand - since he sees the whip

(the punishment in potential)

on the wall,

he has fear and he listens to the study and does not look aside.

And based on this, the answer to the aforementioned question is understood:

How do both things fit together,

that each plague "lasted one quarter of a month" and was then terminated,

and regarding the plague of frogs it says "in the Nile they shall remain" - according to Rashi's explanation that the plague of frogs had two effects "to frighten them and to terrify them". It depends on what is being discussed:

Regarding the essence of the plague which causes "to terrify them" - it was terminated after one quarter of a month,

like the other plagues. But regarding the "to frighten them" which the plague effects - it continues on - "in the Nile they shall remain",

in order that "they may hear and fear".

One must still understand:

Since there needed to be a continuation of a plague in order to effect fear upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians - it should have been a continuation of the plague of blood,

the first plague,

and not the plague of frogs

(the second plague).

That is, after the plague of blood was terminated,

blood should have remained in one part of the Nile,

in order that "they may hear and fear" Pharaoh every day when he goes to the Nile and he sees the blood,

he will remind himself of the plague of blood?

The explanation for this is:

Rashi writes earlier regarding the plague of blood - "because no rain falls in Egypt and the Nile rises and irrigates the land, and the Egyptians worship the Nile,

therefore He struck their deity and afterwards He struck them".

Incidentally:

According to this Rashi, it is understood that one cannot offer another answer which one wanted to answer to the aforementioned question:

The plague of frogs "in the Nile they shall remain" so that the entire time the plague should remain in "their deity"

(the Nile,

the Nile).

According to this Rashi, one cannot say so,

because from Rashi it is understood that after

(one quarter of a month)

when "He struck their deity" this was terminated,

"and afterwards He struck them". Consequently, it turns out that the plague

(unlike the effect of "to frighten them".

As mentioned)

in "their deity"

(the Nile)

was not drawn out further].

That is:

Since Pharaoh considered himself a "god-man" that he had the Nile,

"and the Egyptians worship the Nile" as their deity - the Almighty showed them first and foremost that He strikes "their deity".

It is understood then that the blow of their fear was stronger through the plague of frogs than through the plague of blood:

The plague that the river "turned to blood,"

showed Pharaoh and the Egyptians that the river,

"their fear,"

is not a master,

and the Most High can do there or change whatever He wants,

but blood is not a harmful thing

(in a direct manner).

The plague of frogs - "and the river shall swarm with frogs" - shows more, that

(not only that the river is not a master etc.,

but that)

the river itself, which the Egyptians hold as a deity

("their fear")

strikes them and harms them through "and the river shall swarm with frogs, and they shall go up and come into your house etc."

From this it is understood that the "fear of them" that the frogs

(which "shall remain in the river")

effect is greater than the "fear of them" that the blood would have effected if it had remained in a part of the river. Therefore, "in the river they shall remain" refers to the frogs and not the blood.

And accordingly, it is also understood why Moses emphasizes to Pharaoh "in the river they shall remain"

(and does not simply say "they shall remain"),

because by this the entire force of the matter that effects the "fear of them" is emphasized,

that not only will frogs remain

(this could have been in one place on dry land),

but "in the river they shall remain" - in order to always emphasize

(when Pharaoh goes every morning to the river)

- so that "they may hear and fear" - that the river, which the Egyptians held as their deity,

has in it frogs which previously harmed them. Consequently, it will effect upon Pharaoh the entire force of fear.

And therefore Moses also emphasizes this twice,

and both times "in the river they shall remain"

[One cannot say that he said it to Pharaoh on two separate occasions,

because according to the simple meaning of the verses, Moses says it to Pharaoh at the same occasion,

in the continuation of the speech)

- in order to bring out the emphasis to Pharaoh even more strongly,

that in this river

(deity of Egypt)

frogs that can harm Egypt will always remain.

A sharp student can still ask seemingly:

It is true indeed that frogs "in the river shall remain"

(and not blood)

because they effect the "fear of them" more strongly, since they come from the river and strike the Egyptians - but could the Most High not have made the first plague a plague

(in the river)

that strikes the Egyptians.

The plague of frogs indeed cannot be the first plague,

because Rashi writes that the plagues proceed in the order of military tactics,

that "first one corrupts the water sources and afterwards one shoots arrows at them etc." - but could the Most High

(who is omnipotent and nothing "shall be withheld from You,"

"is anything too hard for Me" *131)

not have made the first plague of "corrupting the water sources" be not the plague of blood,

which is not harmful,

but for example:

corrupt the water sources by having there a harmful poison. As the five-year-old knows that there is water that one is warned not to drink from because it can be harmful to health?

For a sharp student, this is initially not a question. Because with this approach there is an even stronger question seemingly:

Why did the Most High need to send all nine plagues and afterwards send the plague of the firstborn,

could He not have immediately sent the plague of the firstborn - would Pharaoh not have immediately let the Jews out of Egypt?

But the child understands on his own,

that the order of the plagues is from the light to the severe. Because the Most High wanted first to give the possibility to Egypt that through

(only)

a matter

(plague)

lighter, this itself should effect upon them that they should let the Jews out of Egypt. And when a lighter matter did not effect,

the Most High sent a harsher plague,

etc.

Accordingly, it is also understood why the first plague to corrupt the water sources was

(only) blood,

and not a poison

(harmful),

and only the second plague was harmful

(frogs),

because of the reason that the order of the plagues is from the light to the severe.

And one should elaborate on this,

and give to the wise and he will become wiser. As is known, the explanation on this:

If he is a wise person,

what has been told to him until now is sufficient,

and one does not need to explain to him anything more;

if he is not a wise person - more explanation will not help anyway!

Regarding the Jewish people, the Torah has already declared that they are a "wise and understanding people,"

and when one is wise, nothing can help him anymore,

he remains wise. He can fool himself and make himself out to be not wise,

but this does not affect the true reality,

that he is wise. Regarding good and evil, a person was given choice,

but if the appointed angel has proclaimed upon him that he will be wise,

and especially since the Torah says of Jews "a wise and understanding people" - it is lost,

nothing will help him anymore - he remains wise!

He can only lock himself in and make himself unaware - but then the well-known saying of the Rebbe Maharash is known:

One does not fool the world,

one does not fool another,

one fools only oneself - so what is the trick of fooling a fool!...

And it is known what the Baal HaHilula said, that Chassidim are clever, and what clever people can do today, they do not put off until tomorrow.

And regarding this, there is the instruction concerning these days of segula - that already today

(not putting off until tomorrow)

one should begin making the preparations for all the matters that need to be done in connection with the day of the hilula of Yud Shevat. As is known, regarding an important matter, one needs preparation,

like the difference between the Shabbat meal, which requires preparation, and a weekday meal.

And the preparations for this should be with joy and a good heart,

and with expansiveness.

The explanation and the instruction of the notes on the Zohar of Parshat Vaera:

In the note, the father discusses a matter in connection with the passing of the righteous,

and he brings from the Iggeret HaKodesh regarding this.

He focuses on what is stated in the Zohar of our parshah: "Rabbi Abba wept and said, 'Woe, when you will depart from the world and the world will remain orphaned from you, who will be able to illuminate the words of the Torah?' Rabbi Abba opened and said, 'And you shall say thus: "May you live, and may you be at peace, and may your house be at peace, and all that is yours be peace," etc.'"

And he explains "the precision of the language 'when you will depart from us from the world and the world will remain orphaned from you,'

for seemingly 'and the world will remain orphaned from you' is superfluous, because it is understood that when he departs, the world will remain orphaned from him" - that "it can be said that the mere fact that he departs is not sufficient for there not to be found one who can illuminate, etc." And he explains this based on what is explained in the Iggeret HaKodesh, that the disciples of the righteous receive from him after his passing,

and consequently his disciples "will be able to illuminate the words of the Torah through the power of the essential spirit of Rabbi Shimon." "Therefore he added to say 'and the world will remain orphaned from you,'

that is, when the world alone remains orphaned from you,

so that there will not also be his disciples, etc."

It was discussed last Shabbat that according to what is explained in the note, it follows

that there are three generations:

The generation of the righteous himself:

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai

(as it is discussed in this Zohar),

and so too all the leaders in every generation,

until the leader of our generation

(whose passing is on Yud Shevat).

The generation of his disciples,

who receive from his essential spirit of the righteous. And the generation of the disciples of his disciples,

which includes - all the disciples of disciples, generation after generation

[and as discussed then - regarding the descendants of the Alter Rebbe - the seventh generation and the eighth generation, etc.].

This is the level of "offshoots of offshoots,"

aftergrowths,

in whom there is the spirit that he left in them,

as the Tzemach Tzedek explains this.

And it can be said that the three levels in the verse "and you be at peace,"

"and your house be at peace,"

"and all that is yours be peace" correspond to the three generations:

"and you be at peace" - the righteous himself. "and your house be at peace" - his disciples. And "and all that is yours be peace" - the disciples of his disciples.

And the instruction from this Zohar and the note of the father is:

From this, what is stated in the Zohar that "Rabbi Abba wept and said, 'Woe, when you will depart from the world and the world will remain orphaned from you, who will be able to illuminate the words of the Torah?'"

And the father explains that this refers to the third generation

(the students of his students)

- one learns,

that it should not be so,

but rather that all these three generations

(not only one of them),

also the generation of the students of his students must be

(not merely generations by themselves, but)

generations connected with Chur,

as emphasized in this that it speaks here about students and students of students,

which simply are students in relation to the matter of the Torah that they received from their teacher

(as it speaks in this Zohar and a note about this that the passing of the righteous affects in relation to the saying of Torah etc.):

The first generation

(of the righteous himself)

- it speaks about his Torah of the righteous in his generation.

That is, in our matter

(the one discussed in this Zohar)

- Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in his generation,

with whom the matter of Torah is especially emphasized,

and especially - the connection of the revealed part of Torah and the inner dimension of Torah.

And likewise the leaders in every generation - there is their Torah in their generation.

And the Torah of the righteous must descend also into the second generation - his students, and then it must descend to the third generation - the students of his students

(with whom also is the spirit that he left in them).

And as hinted also in the aforementioned verse:

"And you shall have peace, and your house shall have peace, and all that is yours shall have peace,"

for Torah is a matter of peace. And especially "and your house shall have peace,"

as explained in many places that "house" is connected with Torah.

The lesson from this in practical terms:

The study and dissemination of Torah must be in all three generations:

in the generation of the righteous himself,

the generation of his students and the generation of the students of his students

(and not only in one of the three generations),

[as for example - what is studied in this generation from the Torah of the Alter Rebbe).

And in all three generations in a manner of "peace"

("You shall have peace, and your house shall have peace, and all that is yours shall have peace").

As we see it by the Alter Rebbe himself:

Not only that in his generation he engaged in the study and dissemination of Torah and the dissemination of the wellsprings outward,

but also his students studied and disseminated Torah and the wellsprings outward,

and also the students of his students - because he

(the Alter Rebbe)

also commanded that his books be printed

(and his books were already printed in his generation),

and likewise the Mitteler Rebbe

(the generation after the Alter Rebbe)

printed his books - which is study and dissemination in connection with the students of his students,

because his Torah is printed in a book that even in the generations after the generation of the Alter Rebbe and the generation of his students, everyone can study in that book.

The lesson from the note on the Zohar of our portion:

From this, what is stated in the Zohar that from the aspect of the defect of the moon, she is "not blessed from the sun and not illuminated from the sun etc. and not illuminated from the Jubilee" - one learns regarding the service of the Jewish people,

who are similar and count like the moon,

in the aspect of Malchut,

that when they are in their perfection

(without a defect)

they receive from the sun - that is - the matter of blessing

("blessed from the sun")

and light

("illuminated from the sun"),

and light from the aspect of Jubilee

("illuminated from Jubilee"),

Binah.

The matter of the three levels

(the blessing and light from the sun (Zeir Anpin),

and light from Jubilee (Binah))

the father explains:

"From the sun of Zeir Anpin there are two effluences to Malchut,

one in the aspect of internal,

two in the aspect of encompassing,

and corresponding to her food and her garment,

and from Jubilee of Binah there is one effluence to Malchut only in the aspect of encompassing." And based on this

(that the two effluences from the sun,

in the aspect of internal and in the aspect of encompassing correspond to her food and her garment)

it is understood that the effluence to Malchut from Jubilee in the aspect of encompassing corresponds to her conjugal time - the true matter of the encompassing.

And it can be said that these three levels are

(also)

corresponding to the three levels of "Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot,"

as explained in Chassidus,

that they are opposite the encompassing, the filling, and the Essence

(above the encompassing and filling):

"Malchuyot" is the encompassing,

corresponding to the aspect of internal effluence from the sun of Zeir Anpin to Malchut

(the aspect of her food).

"Zichronot" - the filling,

corresponding to the effluence of the aspect of encompassing from the sun of Zeir Anpin to Malchut

(the aspect of her garment).

And "Shofarot" - the Sefirah of Binah,

which is also connected with delight,

Shofar from the term beauty and delight,

corresponding to the effluence in the aspect of encompassing to Malchut from Jubilee

(Binah),

the aspect of her conjugal time - the true matter of the encompassing etc.

And in the service, may he live long, these three levels correspond to "Turn away from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it,"

and it is also connected with the three levels of "in your mouth and in your heart to do it"

(which is brought in the title page of the book of Tanya,

as discussed above).

The lesson from this:

Every Jew

(for Israel are compared and counted to the moon)

has been given powers for all matters — "blessed from the sun,"

"illuminated from the sun,"

and "illuminated from the Jubilee,"

all three levels mentioned above

(encompassing, surrounding, and essence),

which include everything.

And according to the principle that "everything that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world, He did not create a single thing for naught,"

it is understood that a Jew must utilize all these powers that were given to him,

and if not, he confuses the order of creation, heaven forbid

(as was discussed at the farbrengen before this).

And for a Jew, all the services must be — "Turn away from evil" and "do good" and "seek peace and pursue it." And particularly according to the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov on this, "Turn away from evil and do good" — "that he should make from evil good,"

transformation.

In continuation of the above regarding the printing of the book of Tanya

(on whose title page it says "in your mouth and in your heart to do it")

— we will now give a toast to one who is traveling this week to print Tanyas in dozens of places,

and may it be His will,

according to the known teaching of the Alter Rebbe regarding "a day that is entirely a toast,"

that the toast should and will help that he should in this do and succeed, and in a manner of from the outset and beyond.

And even though by mentioning him in public,

there could be, heaven forbid, an "evil eye"

(from jealousy,

not begrudging from jealousy of scribes and the like)

— when it comes to matters of "and these are" "occupying" oneself with a matter of Torah and the dissemination of Torah, an "evil eye" does not apply to this,

similar to how it is with fish,

and on the contrary — it becomes "and they will swarm abundantly in the midst of the land,"

two opposites in one:

"in the midst of the land"

(where fish are seemingly not present)

becomes "and they will swarm

(and)

abundantly,"

like the blessing of Joseph

(the first name of the master of the hillula),

the constellation of the month of Shevat.

And as it is said, "As they afflicted him

(even just a,

coldness done with the nose — 'for their nose is strong' — it does not go further, and on the contrary)

so did they multiply and so did they spread out."

This is also connected with the entirety of the matter of the dissemination of the wellsprings outward — not only that one is not affected by this "outward," but...

one transforms the "outward,"

"the midst of the land,"

into holiness,

and on the contrary — then comes the elevation of the advantage of light from darkness,

"As they afflicted him, so did they multiply and so did they spread out,"

"and they will swarm abundantly in the midst of the land,"

the service of Joseph. And as explained in many places, the matter of Joseph, regarding "Joseph said, 'The Lord has added to me another son,'"

one makes from this "other" a "son."

And together with this, one does it with laughter and joy of holiness — "Isaac

(the second name — but also in the holy tongue — of the master of the hillula),

'Then our mouth will be filled with laughter.'"

Similarly, others who will print Tanyas in several places

(specifically those who can in a natural way take upon themselves the commitment,

but not if one cannot, one should not take it upon oneself even with a "without a vow")

— should now come forward to take a toast. And they should not be ashamed of what people will say or of appearing haughty.

The master of the hillula has already promised that in matters related to his leadership, when there is the "stand ready, all of you," one receives all blessings — in general matters and in particular matters — the blessings of the Holy One, blessed be He,

through "His servants the prophets,"

the leaders — a wise person is superior to a prophet — in every generation,

the extension of Moses in every generation,

including and particularly the Alter Rebbe and the master of the hillula,

the leader of our generation.

And may it be His will that very soon — "very close" indeed — there should be the "matter is very close to you,"

"the word of the Lord — this is the end,"

the true and complete redemption through our righteous Messiah,

and "then our mouth will be filled with laughter,"

And the completeness of the people,

"with our young and with our old, etc., with our sons and with our daughters,"

go together with the completeness of the Torah and its commandments,

in the land,

the completeness of the land.

Until completeness in the manner of "the Lord your God will enlarge your border" — in the completeness of the land,

and "will enlarge" in the completeness of the Torah,

that is, the inner dimension of the Torah,

the Torah of the Messiah,

and "will enlarge" in the completeness of the people — "be fruitful and multiply and fill the land and subdue it,"

And speedily in our days, literally,

and all this — with joy and goodness of heart.

The Rebbe Shlita gave a bottle of mashke to R. S.A. Shy"a (in connection with the printing of Tanya in Brazil).

To R. Shd"B F. Shy"a (printing of Tanya in Italy).

To R. Y.H. Shy"a (in Belgium).

Afterwards the Rebbe Shlita began to play the melody "Ufartzu."

Afterwards he instructed the Mashpia Shy"a to play "Yehi Ratzon ... that the Beis HaMikdash be built speedily in our days and grant us our portion in Your Torah."