English translation — שיחת ליל ה' דחג הסוכות ה'תשמ"ה - לאחרי תפלת ערבית

Today

(or night)

contains within itself several matters of action and deed,

in connection with Yom Tov and Chol HaMoed and Simchas Beis HaShoevah,

and in addition to this, the matters connected to this day were already spoken about at length last year,

and have already been printed and published¹.

Therefore, the matters will be spoken only in brief, encompassing all the matters,

relying on what was spoken last year.

- And in addition to this, we will dwell

(as is customary this year)

on the matter that the Ushpizin of this day

(the Ushpiza of the Zohar² and the Chassidic Ushpiza³)

are different from one another

(in addition to the common denominator between them);

on the shiur of the Rambam of this day,

and on the "Shir shel Yom".

Regarding the matter and the unique lesson that is in the special Ushpiza of each and every day,

one must, however, note:

In general, all seven Ushpizin come each day,

but the matter of the prominent one among the Ushpiza that pertains to this day is,

that he is the primary Ushpiza,

and the other Ushpizin come only "and my people"⁴

(with him).

That is, although in general each of the Ushpizin has a particular activity and a particular path in the service of Hashem — nevertheless, on this day they add to the activity of the special Ushpiza.

And it can be said,

that this is analogous to the matter of a "gate",

that the unique matter of this Ushpiza is the "gate" through which the matters of all the Ushpizin pass.

And it is known the explanation

(in the sicha of my father-in-law, the Rebbe⁵,

based on the writings of the Arizal⁶)

of the statement of our Sages⁷ "Your father, in what was he especially careful?",

that although one is obligated in all the mitzvos, there is a mitzvah in which he "was especially careful",

because it is the "gate" through which all matters of Torah and mitzvos ascend,

and in this "gate" there are differences from one Jew to another:

by one Jew it is one mitzvah,

and by another a different mitzvah. Therefore, each Jew is "especially careful" in a different mitzvah. And as discussed at length in past years.

And this is also regarding the Ushpizin:

The Ushpiza unique to this day and his path of service is the "gate" through which the matters of the other six Ushpizin "ascend".

And furthermore:

This is not merely a "gate",

through which one can ascend,

but rather the Ushpiza unique to this day becomes the leader of the other Ushpizin,

and they become his students,

consequently, they accomplish in his matter more than he accomplished on his own.

And this is also the explanation for that which there are those who ask and wonder:

It is a very great wonder,

that when one comes to the Simchas Beis HaShoevah of tonight,

one makes a whole storm about it,

that it is the second day of the week,

and the fifth day of Sukkos etc., while on the night before this one, one made the same storm,

that it is not possible to say,

that the main part of Simchas Beis HaShoevah is specifically the past night and the past day!

And regarding this, one directs oneself

(according to how it was last year,

and as it should be according to Torah),

that it will be on the coming nights,

that then one will speak how that night is the main part of Simchas Beis HaShoevah?!

And when it comes to a matter in Torah that is also connected to the service of Hashem — it is certainly not possible to say that one will make up contrivances and show inventions,

that one can say such a matter for sharpening the mind and the like...

(Indeed, for sharpening the mind according to Torah, but only "for sharpening the mind")...

And especially since the same question is found regarding the discourses of our Rabbis and Nesi'im:

In the discourses that were said on Sukkos,

one makes a storm,

that it is entirely impossible to say what a wondrous activity is accomplished on Sukkos,

and neither Shavuos nor Pesach come to this,

even though they too are festivals;

and nevertheless, one finds by the same Rebbes and Nesi'im,

and in the same style in Chassidus — that when it comes to discourses of Shavuos, one makes a storm about the superiority of Shavuos over Pesach and Sukkos;

and so too regarding discourses of Pesach,

and so too regarding Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh and the like?

One of the explanations of this,

in accordance with what was said above,

is that this is a matter of a "gate":

When the days of Sukkot arrive,

they are the gate through which the matters of "remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt" or "the giving of the Torah" ascend.

And so too regarding the other matters.

Consequently, this is not merely a simple explanation, heaven forbid, or just an invention, but rather this is the actual reality,

that when a maamar is spoken on Sukkot,

it speaks in Torah how then the matter of Sukkot is the "gate" of all matters,

also the time of the giving of our Torah and the time of our freedom and so forth.

From this is also understood regarding the Simchat Beit HaShoevah:

The Simchat Beit HaShoevah continues for seven days,

because since the water libation is for all seven days⁸,

consequently also "And you shall draw water with joy"⁹ is for all seven days.

And although during the time of the Temple,

when the actual drawing took place,

the joy etc. did not occur on Yom Tov¹⁰, nevertheless, in the First Temple,

before the decrees,

the drawing was then also with joy

(and the decrees were only decreed during the time of the Second Temple)¹¹.

But that the water libation is "for all seven days" is not a single point¹²,

as one might say, rather,

as is implied from several matters,

these are seven distinct matters and services.

And one of the proofs for this is from the fact that the song of the day is different each day¹³,

consequently it is proven that also the essence of each day is different. And in the language of halachah, "they are divided in the offerings"¹⁴,

which¹⁵ is why a full Hallel etc. is recited each day of Sukkot.

Therefore, it is close to say,

that so too regarding the joy,

the Simchat Beit HaShoevah,

that each and every day has a distinct matter in the joy.

Consequently, it has a place,

just as regarding the festivals,

that each and every night has the unique quality of that night,

and therefore one must discover each night its quality over the previous night,

not to demonstrate a trick etc.,

but because such is the reality,

that each night is the primary and "gate" through which the matters of the other nights ascend.

Let us return to our subject:

Just as this is regarding the nights of Simchat Beit HaShoevah in general,

so too regarding the ushpizin,

that the primary and gate is the ushpiz of that day,

and the other six ushpizin ascend through him.

In continuation of this, we will dwell upon the unique matter of today's ushpizin.

Regarding the ushpizin of this day,

it has already been mentioned and discussed at length

(last year¹⁶),

that these are Aharon

(according to the ruling and conclusion¹⁷,

that Yosef comes after Moshe and Aharon),

and the Chassidic ushpiz — the Tzemach Tzedek

(according to all opinions).

At first glance, the question may arise:

What is the common denominator between them? Were they not only in different times but also in completely different situations?

It was discussed at length last year¹⁶,

that the common denominator is the matter of Ahavat Yisrael,

to the extent of the unity of Israel.

[And that this matter has a connection and link to the festival of Sukkot,

as explained elsewhere at length¹⁸].

And in particular:

Regarding Aharon, the Mishnah says¹⁹ "Be of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving the creatures and drawing them near to the Torah."

And as is related at length in Avot d'Rabbi Natan on this Mishnah²⁰,

the details of his actions in this,

and the way he would make peace between people.

From this all of the children of Israel learn throughout all the generations,

for all must be "disciples of Aharon".

And in particular, this matter is emphasized on this day,

when Aharon is the ushpiz,

and as mentioned at length,

which means that on this day all the ushpizin,

all six modes of service,

are included in the matter of Ahavat and Achdut Yisrael,

to the extent that they add to the matter of Aharon.

So too was it with the Tzemach Tzedek,

in whose days there was the unity of all circles among Jews.

Until his days there were still "remnants" of the differences of opinion between various circles in Israel,

and the Tzemach Tzedek, through his travels and meetings with the great ones of Israel from all circles, removed many questions and answered many difficulties,

until there was a unification and cooperation in matters of the community of Israel and of individuals in Israel,

from all circles together²¹.

This peace with other circles brought even more unity among Jews in general,

and when they gathered together,

they also drew in from those circles that were, in themselves, very far from these circles²².

And as discussed above²³,

that when a great bonfire is made

(a great fire),

it draws to itself sparks of light that are found in a distant place,

but not so when the fire is not so strong²⁴ — so too in our matter,

that due to the greatness of the power of the public and the unity, they then drew in from those circles that stood in a distant place. And it is known²⁵ the actual deed and the cooperation that was among all these circles regarding the rescue that saved to a great degree the education of the sons and daughters of Israel in that generation,

and this also had an influence on the subsequent generations.

And as discussed several times, the advantage of "education" is that it is not only an action for the moment,

but when it is "Train a youth according to his way," then "even when he grows old he will not depart from it"²⁶,

meaning that afterwards, when the youth marries and establishes a Jewish home, this has an influence on his children and grandchildren until the end of all generations.

That which is the unique and common aspect of both ushpizin — Aharon and the Tzemach Tzedek,

has an influence on the generations after them,

like the influence of each of the ushpizin and all of them together.

For, just as one must be "from the students of Aharon,"

so too must one be from the students of Moshe and so forth,

and likewise regarding the Tzemach Tzedek and the Nesiim before him and after him.

But in addition to the common denominator,

one must also find the difference between them and the innovation that each one brings relative to the other.

And as was spoken in the previous nights,

that the very fact that both are ushpizin on the same day,

and together with this they are two ushpizin with distinct names — it is understood that they have essential matters in which they differ from each other,

to the point that they are opposites.

And as is understood simply,

since "the name by which he is called in the Holy Tongue" expresses the content of the thing²⁷,

it is proven that the fact that they have distinct names is because they differ in essential matters.

But on the other hand, it is understood,

that from this very difference one must learn an even greater and stronger lesson,

which comes from the unification of opposites,

and it is known that the matter of unifying opposites accomplishes much more than things that are different but not opposites.

And as is understood from the explanations in Chassidus²⁸

(and one also sees this in the service of man),

that when one wishes to bring together Chessed and Gevurah, one must reach the Sefirah of Tiferes with all the storm that entails,

for Tiferes ascends to the Kesser and "makes peace in His high places" etc.;

but not so when bringing together Chessed with Netzach or Gevurah with Hod and so forth,

even though they are also distinct Sefiros, one need not reach that entire storm,

because they are not opposites.

And as one also sees it simply,

in actual deed

(for the deed is the main thing),

that although bringing together two people who are merely different in their service and their opinions and making unity between them is also a great labor through Ahavas Yisrael,

one must, however, have much greater effort and invest more powers to bring together those whose opinions are opposite.

And since the toil and labor is more difficult,

it is understood that according to "you have toiled":

so too is the "and you have found"²⁹,

"according to the pain is the reward"³⁰,

meaning that a very great matter emerges from it.

And regarding our matter — it is understood,

that when one will find the matter in which these two ushpizin are not only different but also opposites,

and nevertheless they come on the same day,

the lesson from this will be much more powerful.

So that which both are on the same day means that they become like "one ushpizin". Because it is not the plain meaning that the Nasi of our generation revealed and said that there are fourteen ushpizin,

rather he says that the seven ushpizin themselves exist as they are in revelation and in Kabbalah,

as it is stated in the Zohar,

and there are the Chassidic and inner seven ushpizin.

Where indeed does one find opposites between the actions of Aharon and the actions of the Tzemach Tzedek?

One finds a matter in which they are opposites from one extreme to the other!

With both there was indeed the matter

(that unites them)

of Ahavas Yisrael,

but this itself was in two opposites:

Regarding Aharon, his action was in "loves the creatures",

which means,

as the Alter Rebbe emphasizes in Tanya chapter 32,

that his action in Ahavas Yisrael was connected with "mere creatures".

And simply — these are not "your heads" nor "your tribes" nor all the other types;

rather the only virtue they have is that they are creations

(creatures)

of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and in the language of the Gemara³¹ "the Craftsman who made me".

And regarding them was the effort of Aharon,

and from this one also takes the lesson in avodah,

as the Alter Rebbe explains there at length,

with whom one must occupy oneself and whom one must draw near and after whom one must pursue and act with the greatest effort etc. — with those who are on the level of "creatures".

When it comes, however, to the effort of the Tzemach Tzedek,

that he brought peace and unity among Jews — this is at the opposite extreme,

in a fundamental matter

(about which one does not make a storm and a tumult,

for understandable reasons).

The manner in which the Tzemach Tzedek brought about unity of Israel,

until there was cooperation in all areas,

both in study and in deed,

until also in the war with the law of the kingdom regarding matters connected with fear of Heaven — was through his connecting with those who were at the opposite extreme of "creatures",

not merely Torah scholars and not merely with great ones,

rather with the greatest of the great of Israel in his generation,

with whom he conferred

(and convinced them)

until there was a drawing near that leads to unity.

[And although the Tzemach Tzedek also had dealings with "creatures" etc.,

as is known the stories of the Rebbe my father-in-law, the Rebbe, about this,

including the story of a gemach to a butcher before prayer etc.³² — nevertheless, his main accomplishment as a Nasi in Israel was that he brought unity among all circles,

and this was accomplished through his being connected with the greatest of the great in Israel,

whom he convinced etc.].

And that the matter of peace that was accomplished between the Tzemach Tzedek and the great ones of the other circles was connected with fundamental matters of faith.

And as is known,³³

that the main matter that initially brought about the division between the circles was the interpretation of the concept of tzimtzum,

that the Alter Rebbe stormed that Heaven forbid to say that tzimtzum is literal,

and as is understood also from that which he elaborates on this in Shaar HaYichud VeHaEmunah³⁴ and marvels and magnifies the value and greatness of the matter;

and by the others the approach was that tzimtzum is specifically literal,

and this was one of the points about which they stormed.

And in this matter the greatest unity was accomplished,

until the student of the Alter Rebbe's opponent,

R. Chaim Volozhiner,

wrote in his book³⁵ that tzimtzum is not literal!

It follows from this,

that the matter of unity and peace between the circles in the time of the Tzemach Tzedek,

which was based on the agreement of the great ones of Israel from the other circles with the interpretation of tzimtzum of the Alter Rebbe,

is at the opposite extreme of "loves the creatures",

because this was an agreement among the great ones of Israel and regarding a fundamental matter of faith.

It emerges that the matter of the unity of Israel which was revealed through Aharon the Kohen and through the Tzemach Tzedek is divided in a manner of two opposites,

both regarding those with whom one brings about this matter and in the way one brings it about:

Aharon brought about the matter of peace and unity among "creatures",

and the manner of his activity was as related in Avos d'Rabbi Nosson³⁶;

but the Tzemach Tzedek brought it about with the great ones of Israel,

and the way was through persuasion and agreement in the most elevated matters.

And from this there is also the instruction that comes from the innovation in each one of them:

When one approaches a Jew and tells him that he must engage in love of Israel and in the unity of Israel,

one must thereby ward off two claims of the "clever one":

On one side he can claim:

What does it mean that he should lower himself and have dealings with "creatures"! Even the "simplest of the simple" can do this! For this one need not know how to learn,

and certainly not know how to learn with splendor,

with the Torah of Chassidus and with all the explanations therein;

the conduct in the manner as related in Avos d'Rabbi Nosson is sufficient,

and in worldly language "in a householder's manner"!

This claim the Alter Rebbe wards off in Tanya, chapter 32,

that also regarding "mere creatures" one must occupy oneself,

and this is the lesson from Aharon the Kohen Gadol,

that although he was a Kohen Gadol,

nevertheless he occupied himself with creatures.

From the second side, however, he can claim:

Well, when it is a matter of influencing "creatures" it is fine;

but when one urges him to influence "great ones of Israel",

he claims "Who am I and what am I"?!

He indeed recognizes his own worth,

and knows how many matters in Nigleh and how many matters in Chassidus and how many matters in Kabbalah,

and is an "Eshkol — a man who has everything"³⁷,

but to go and change a great one in Israel who is a true great one in Israel

(like those with whom the Tzemach Tzedek occupied himself)

— for this he cannot reach...

And in addition to this, doubts can occur to him about the matter itself,

whether it is indeed worthwhile for him to exert himself in this. Since the other is a "great one in Israel",

a true great one — does he then need to occupy himself only with adding to his perfection,

that he should become a true lover of Israel?

It is understandable when it is a matter of "creatures" — he understands that he must draw them close to Torah,

which is "our life and the length of our days"³⁸,

and for its sake the world was created³⁹;

but when the other has Torah and has mitzvos and has greatness and all the matters,

there is nothing more that he lacks in perfection in love of Israel,

or even if he lacks this perfection — this is nevertheless not a matter of actual danger to life,

consequently one need not sacrifice oneself for this!

So the claim is,

that one will do it in a manner of "meheichi teisi" (if it comes easily):

if it goes easily — one will do it;

if it does not go easily — one will not do it...

And regarding this is the lesson from the manner of service of the unity of Israel of the Tzemach Tzedek.

This is the general instruction that one has from the unique matter of each of the two ushpizin in their service in love of Israel,

that regardless of the claims etc. which hold back from the service in love of Israel,

both regarding "creatures"

(that one need not lower oneself to "creatures"),

and regarding the necessity to influence the great ones of Israel that they should stand in a manner of the unity of Israel,

and the claims enumerated above,

and the other claims and pretexts that one can find in this — one should not take them into account.

And the reason for the matter is,

because regardless of the claims,

the truth is that the unity of Israel is a matter that pertains to the existence of every Jew,

consequently it also pertains to a great one in Israel that he should be a lover of Israel to the extent of the manner of the unity of Israel.

And as the Midrash⁴⁰ relates an astonishing thing,

that even those whose conduct was the opposite of keeping the Torah and mitzvos

(the tribe of Ephraim)

"would go out to war and be victorious",

and the men of David would go out to war and fall — because the tribe of Ephraim went to war in a state of unity,

but not so the soldiers of the house of David!

It comes out,

that although their title is "Soldiers of the House of David" — nevertheless, the matter of unity among Jews is even more relevant than that!

And as all this is explained at length in the discourses of the Generation of the Dispersion,

in Ohr HaTorah⁴¹ and similar works.⁴²

This is the explanation of what was said previously, that it is a matter of pikuach nefesh.

And the explanation of the matter in its inner aspect:

Although it concerns one regarding whom all agree

(and so it is according to halachah)

that he has Torah and mitzvos,

and even in ahavas Yisrael he lacks only perfection,

consequently this is not "unity" and he has failed, etc. — nevertheless, the matter is a category of "pikuach nefesh."

And as the Gemara says in Shabbos⁴³

(and it is ruled as halachah⁴⁴)

that "a Torah scholar upon whose garment a stain is found is liable to death,"

this is the nullification of his existence,

although for one who is not a Torah scholar this is considered normal,

i.e., not only does it not harm him,

but it is his usual way!

And as has been discussed several times regarding the laws of "invalidated consecrated items"

(which is the subject of the Rambam's study during these days),

that the precision in this matter is that these are "invalid" because it concerns "consecrated items." Regarding non-consecrated items, there would be no invalidity,

and it would be non-consecrated in its ultimate perfection

(according to the status and condition of non-consecrated items);

but when it becomes "consecrated,"

holy — then it becomes invalid.

And regarding this, one could elaborate with more examples,

but certainly this is understood by itself and does not require elaboration.

And accordingly, it is understood in our matter,

that the lack of perfection in ahavas Yisrael by even the greatest of the great,

can be called a matter of "pikuach nefesh."

And from all the above, it is also understood the matter and advantage that is in the study of that which both ushpizin,

Aharon and the Tzemach Tzedek,

come together,

because from this emerges an advantage.

The study in matters of ahavas and achdus Yisrael from both of them together brings about the matter of uniting opposites,

to unify all Jews,

from the "simple people" to the greatest of the great of Israel,

until there is an absolute unity of all Jews together,

in a manner of "a great congregation."

This also has a connection to the redemption from the present exile — that not a single Jew will remain in exile. At the time of the redemption from the Babylonian exile and the building of the Second Temple, regarding which it is said "the glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former,"⁴⁵ there was then a situation,

that certain Jews,

great ones of Israel,

remained in exile.

And as the Gemara says⁴⁶ regarding the tribe of Levi

(about which the matter of the day's portion of Chumash speaks),

"Why were the Levites penalized with regard to maaser...?

Because they did not ascend in the days of Ezra,"

and this is not the place to elaborate on this.

And accordingly

(and all the more so)

the redemption from the exile of Persia and Media and from the exile of Greece was in a manner that Jews remained in exile.

However, in the present redemption, not a single one will remain in exile,

neither from the simple people nor from the great ones of Israel.

Therefore, the service now must also be in matters of ahavas Yisrael,

specifically in the manner of "you will be gathered one by one,"⁴⁷

individually,

because every Jew belongs

(before the unification through the gathering)

to a different "place" and level in his status and condition in Torah and mitzvos — but afterwards it becomes a great congregation,

as has been explained at length several times.

And one should connect all this with the day's portion of Chumash:

In today's portion of Chumash, the blessing for the tribe of Levi is related — whose essence of the tribe of Levi is the matter of unity,

as we see that the name "Levi" is derived from "this time my husband will be joined to me,"⁴⁸

the matter of unity,

and according to the simple meaning, the essence of the tribe of Levi is "they shall teach Your judgments to Jacob and Your Torah to Israel,"⁴⁹

to influence all of the children of Israel.

And in particular, the matter of the tribe of Levi is,

as the Rambam says,⁵⁰

not bound to the tribe,

"And not only the tribe of Levi, but every person whose spirit moved him, etc.,"

as was discussed at length last year.⁵¹

And one should also connect this with what the halachah brings, the Rambam at the conclusion of the laws of Shemittah and Yovel,

that the matter of Yovel is specifically "at the time when all its inhabitants are upon it"⁵²

(unlike regarding Shemittah, where there is a dispute among the poskim whether in our times it is from the Torah or rabbinic⁵³)

— which will be,

as mentioned,

in the true and complete redemption through Mashiach our righteousness.

And we must connect all this with today's lesson in the Rambam.

In today's lesson⁵⁴ the Rambam discusses the laws of mixtures in sacred matters,

i.e., what is the law when certain offerings became mixed with other offerings,

or the blood became mixed with the blood of other offerings,

and similarly regarding limbs, etc.

And in continuation of the matter, the Rambam cites what the Mishnah says in Zevachim⁵⁵: "All may become mixed except the sin-offering and the guilt-offering,"

and in the language of the Rambam⁵⁶: "All sacred offerings can become mixed with their own kind,

except the sin-offering with the guilt-offering,

for the guilt-offering is only from male sheep, and there is no sin-offering from sheep except a female."

What is here, at first glance, completely incomprehensible — what is it coming to teach us?

Since in reality they cannot become mixed,

why does the Mishnah need to tell this?

The purpose of the Mishnah is to state laws,

what is the law when they have become mixed;

and here the Mishnah states a reality that cannot occur according to the nature of things — why does the Mishnah need to speak about this?!

And the wonder in this is — that no one questions this!

And as has been discussed several times,

that these are matters that even in the study of the Talmud one does not pay attention to. This is a "blatant difficulty," and specifically because of this, one does not question it.

And when one wishes to propose that this be included in the yeshiva study curriculum — then "who remembers me?!"...

Simply, the Mishnah says here that in reality they cannot become mixed,

therefore no law applies in this case.

But this is a matter of reality,

which the Mishnah does not need to tell!

Incidentally:

The same question also exists in Tractate Yevamot at its beginning:

The Mishnah says at the beginning of Yevamot: "Fifteen women exempt their rivals and their rivals' rivals from halitzah and from yibbum until the end of the world

(for if one of them was married to his brother and he had another wife and died without children, both are exempt — Rashi...

his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law...

And all of them, if they died, or refused, or were divorced, or were found to be an aylonit, their rivals are permitted,

but you cannot say regarding his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law that they were found to be an aylonit or that they refused."

And the reason for this is simply,

because an "aylonit" cannot have children,

therefore she cannot be "his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law,"

and similarly, refusal applies only to a minor,

and if the minor has children, then "children are like signs,"

she is no longer a minor and cannot refuse.

And here too the same question arises:

That regarding an aylonit or a minor the matter of mother-in-law, etc., cannot occur is a matter of reality — why does the Mishnah need to inform us of this?!

And as mentioned — no one questions this,

and they say that this is not a question! When one will ask such a question in a yeshiva,

they will look at it as a wild question...

What does "wild question" mean?

— Here we are speaking about the plain meaning of the Mishnah! Does one need a Tanna to reveal that an aylonit and a minor cannot be "his mother-in-law, etc."?!

Similarly, there is a question of this sort regarding the matter of the water libation and the wine libation,

which no one

(at least among those with whom I spoke)

questions,

although at first glance it is an astonishing thing.

It is explained in Chassidus⁵⁷ the difference between the wine libation and the water libation,

that the matter of the wine libation is explicitly stated in the Torah,

because it is a matter and level that pertains to revelation,

in contrast to the water libation.

From this emerges also regarding joy — that the joy of the wine libation is a joy that has taste,

just as wine has taste

(unlike water),

and as the Sages said⁵⁸: "There is no joy except with wine,"

and "we do not recite song over wine⁵⁹ meaning that which gladdens God and men"⁶⁰;

in contrast, the joy of the water libation is a joy that has no taste:

water has no taste,

and they cannot bring joy.

And as explained in Chassidus⁶¹,

that the reason why wine brings joy,

is because wine comes from grapes,

the matter of revelation,

therefore through wine "wine enters, a secret emerges"⁶²,

revelation of the inner,

the matter of joy;

in contrast, water has no connection to joy.

And this is the innovation of the water libation on Sukkos,

that also the "drawing of water" is "with joy,"

out of joy,

and on the contrary — a very great joy,

of which "one who has not seen the rejoicing of the water-drawing has never seen joy in his life" ⁶³.

And simply, the reason for the joy of the water libation

(at least so it appears to those with whom I spoke about this),

is that since one contemplates that this is the fulfillment of a commandment of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and especially that this is a most exalted commandment,

a law given to Moses at Sinai ⁶⁴,

and it is not explicitly stated in the Written Torah because it is from a more exalted place — this brings him to great and immense joy,

even greater than the joy of wine,

because the matter of the wine libation does not originate from such an exalted place, etc.

So argue all those with whom I spoke,

and they prove explicitly that thus it is stated in one discourse and in a second discourse and in a third discourse and in all discourses...

But prima facie the entire matter does not fit:

If the joy of the water libation is because one fulfills the commandment of the Holy One, blessed be He — then this is not the joy of the water libation!

The joy is because of fulfilling the command of the Holy One, blessed be He — where it is irrelevant what the command is;

"If he had been commanded to chop wood" ⁶⁵ he would also have the same joy! So what connection does this joy have to "water"?

On the contrary:

If the joy is because of fulfilling the command of the Holy One, blessed be He,

then it makes no difference to him whether the Almighty told him regarding "water" or regarding "chopping wood"

[and especially that also "chopping wood" is not stated in the Written Torah...].

And especially since one explicitly connects the joy with the nature of the water libation specifically. And as explained in Chassidus,

that "wine" and "water" allude to the levels of "wine" and "water" in the Torah,

and the innovation of the joy of the "water libation" is that it is a joy that has a connection to that part of the Torah called water,

and not

(only)

because this is a fulfillment of a commandment of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And the explanation of this:

The innovation of the joy of the water libation is,

that although the reason for the joy is because this is a command of the Holy One, blessed be He,

nevertheless it permeates him so thoroughly,

that he has joy from the "water"!

That is, just as with the joy of wine, the joy is not because of the command of the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, but because of the wine,

which is by nature a thing that brings joy

(for in the matter of fulfilling the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, wine is equal to other commandments like offering salt on the altar or wood on the altar,

but joy is only with wine),

which is why "they do not recite song except over wine" — so too regarding the water libation,

that the joy is because this is water!

And in the service of man it means,

that he "works" on himself so much during the days of Sukkos,

that that which it is a command of Hashem to be joyful permeates the matter of drawing water,

so that he rejoices in the drawing of water!

And this is the innovation of the joy of the water libation:

Not only is he joyful in fulfilling the command of the Holy One, blessed be He,

which is also a matter that brings to joy,

"the precepts of Hashem are upright, rejoicing the heart" ⁶⁶,

but he is joyful from the drawing of water!

Joy of a mitzvah is a separate matter,

and also the rejoicing of the water-drawing is included in this;

but the innovation of the rejoicing of the water-drawing is that he rejoices with the water.

And likewise regarding our subject,

in the laws of mixtures in offerings:

And the explanation of this:

Just as this is regarding the difference between wine and water,

that the difference between them is not only in reality,

that this is "water" and this is "wine",

but there is also a difference in content — that the commandment of joy which is connected with wine,

is related to the specific form and content of wine,

and the joy which is connected with water is related to the specific form and content of water,

so too regarding offerings:

That a sin-offering is specifically a lamb

(a female lamb)

and a guilt-offering is specifically a male,

is connected with the content of the matter and the law:

It is not only a matter of reality,

but also a matter that has meaning — that a sin-offering is specifically a female and a guilt-offering is specifically a male.

Consequently, it must be said,

that what the Mishnah comes to teach us with that which "all may be intermingled except for the sin-offering and the guilt-offering,"

is not merely a matter of fact,

and in the language of the Rambam "that the guilt-offering is only from male sheep and there is no sin-offering from sheep except a female,"

but rather thereby the law is emphasized that with a "sin-offering"

(female)

one cannot fulfill the obligation for a "guilt-offering"

(male),

and likewise the reverse.

For in general there are laws regarding offerings,

regarding which we see differences between the initial preference and post-facto validity,

as is the case with the general concept of a "sliding-scale offering"⁶⁷,

that it depends whether the offerer is "rich" or "poor". Consequently, there could have been a "what you might have thought",

that post-facto one could with a "female"

(sin-offering)

fulfill the obligation for a "male"

(guilt-offering).

And this is the novel law in that which the Rambam says "that the guilt-offering is only from male sheep and there is no sin-offering from sheep except a female",

that the "only...

except" means to establish a law,

that with a sin-offering one cannot fulfill the obligation for a guilt-offering,

and likewise the reverse.

An example of the matter - in Chassidus:

It is known the inner explanation that the Nasi of our generation revealed⁶⁸ in the language of the Mishnah⁶⁹ "one who exchanges a cow for a donkey",

that the concept of exchanging a cow for a donkey in the inner aspect of the matter means,

that one exchanges the service that is connected with "donkey" for the service that is connected with "cow". "Donkey" its concept is the attribute of kindness,

and cow is connected with the attribute of severity,

and it can be a reality,

that one should exchange the service of kindness for the service of severity⁷⁰.

From that which the Mishnah says that in the physical realm there can be a reality of "one who exchanges a cow for a donkey"

(with several conditions and laws regarding this)

it is understood,

that also in the spiritual realm the concept can be a reality,

that one should exchange,

and perform that which a donkey

(kindness)

does by means of a cow

(severity)

and likewise the reverse.

And just as this is in the service of man in spirituality,

so too is it in law regarding our matter,

that there can be a reality of "one who exchanges a sin-offering for a guilt-offering" and vice versa.

Thus, even though without the ruling of the Mishnah

(and the Rambam)

one would also have known that in reality a sin-offering and a guilt-offering cannot be mixed together, because this one is a male and that one is a female,

but if the Torah had not negated it, one could have thought that regarding the effect upon the person,

the "atonement",

it could be in a certain situation that a sin-offering should substitute for a guilt-offering and vice versa.

And especially as we see, as mentioned, in the laws of the sliding-scale offering,

and there is also the distinction if he was poor and became rich and the like

(as explained in the Rambam⁷¹).

Based on this, one can explain another question.

On the Mishnah in Zevachim "all may be intermingled except for the sin-offering and the guilt-offering" the Rambam writes in his Commentary on the Mishnah:

"And the matter of the sin-offering, that it is impossible for it to be intermingled with the guilt-offering under any circumstances, is well explained,

and it is that the guilt-offering will only be from male sheep as we explained at the beginning of our words in this tractate and there will be no sin-offering from the species of sheep except from the species of females only." So when one looks "at the beginning of our words",

in the introduction to the Order of Kodashim,

one sees that the Rambam writes explicitly "and the sin-offering...

and it will be from males and from females",

and as the law is that there is a sin-offering that is a male,

a goat of a prince!?

The commentators⁷² bring that which the Gemara says in Zevachim⁷³ "this one has hair and this one has wool",

i.e., that a male sin-offering cannot in reality be intermingled with a guilt-offering,

because a guilt-offering is a "ram" which has "wool",

thick hair,

and a goat has "hair",

thin hair.

According to this, however, the question arises on the Rambam here

(in the Laws of the Sacrificial Rites):

Just as he establishes that a male and a female cannot be intermingled,

should he also have established that a "goat" and a "ram" cannot be intermingled because "this one has hair and this one has wool"?

[And especially since this is a matter that is stated explicitly in the Gemara,

the principle⁷⁴ that the Rambam does not bring matters that are not explicit in the Gemara (except for a few places where he writes "it seems to me"...) cannot apply to this.]

It will be understood according to the explanation above,

that the Rambam does not intend to inform of a matter in reality that one can know on his own,

but rather to make known a "law,"

and the reason for this law,

that one who is liable for a chatat cannot be atoned for through an asham — is connected to the concept that an asham is specifically a male and a chatat is specifically a female.

And therefore the Rambam brings as halachah only the detail that a chatat and asham cannot be mixed because a male and female cannot be mixed.

Explanation of the matter in the service of man:

The distinction between male and female regarding offerings will be understood with the introduction of what the Ramban wrote,

that at the time of the offering of the sacrifices, the person offering was required to contemplate as if he himself was being offered,

because in truth he should have been offered,

but the Most High, in His great kindness, transferred it,

so that it could be done through a sacrifice,

through the contemplation and the laying of his hands on the head of the sacrifice and the prayer and repentance

(returning from his knowledge)

etc.

From this it is understood,

that the distinction in the sacrifices is connected to a distinction in the state of man. When a person contemplates that a female is being offered in his place, he must contemplate as if he is in the state and condition of the service of a "female,"

and likewise regarding a male.

What the manner of service of a female is,

as is simple to understand,

and it is brought in Rashi on the Torah,

that there is a reality of "his strength weakened like a female,"

and "Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob — these are the women,

say to them in a gentle language,"

in contrast to "and tell the children of Israel — punishments and details. Meaning, to the males — things as hard as sinews."

And both modes of service exist in the conduct of each person:

There is a reality of harsh language,

"He will anger him" and the like,

and there is a manner of "ways of pleasantness and ways of peace,"

in a gentle language.

And in this is the lesson from this law, that a male and female cannot be mixed.

And we return to our subject:

The concept of "ways of pleasantness and ways of peace,"

the service in a gentle language,

is particularly relevant when it concerns another Jew,

and especially in a matter of love of Israel,

until it brings about the unity of Israel.

And this has a special connection to this time,

at the Simchat Beit HaShoevah,

which is connected to the ushpizin whose concept is love and unity of Israel,

both Aharon and the Tzemach Tzedek,

and as discussed above that this is in the two modes of (a)

"loves the creatures"

(as Aharon did) and (b)

love of the great ones of Israel — both of which have the same purpose and goal and outcome — that this should bring about the unity of Israel.

And one of the ways to succeed most in this is when one does it with joy,

because joy breaks through boundaries,

consequently the joy nullifies his own boundaries and limitations and measures — every "I" becomes demolished into one thing with all Jews,

and as water reflects a face back to a face, so is the heart of man to man,

he arouses in another Jew also such a feeling,

and as is related in the Adra there,

and this brings about the unity of Israel,

which brings about victory in war,

as was discussed at length above.

And especially when one connects this with Torah and mitzvot — for this is indeed the concept of the festival of Sukkot,

as is explained in Chassidus on the verse "at the covering of the day of our festival,"

that the matters which are initiated on Rosh Hashanah "in a covering,"

in concealment,

are revealed on the day of our festival,

and so it is also regarding the acceptance of the kingship on Rosh Hashanah,

"Make Me king over you,"

brings about the "and afterwards I will decree decrees upon you,"

the study of Torah and the fulfillment of the mitzvot,

and especially when this is with joy of a mitzvah,

as the Rambam says,

in a manner of "leaping and dancing before Him,"

with all strength.

And may it be His will that it should be so in the Simchat Beit HaShoevah of this night,

and as stated above,

this is the essence of the Simchat Beit HaShoevah in this year.

And according to what is explained in the letter of the old Rebbe that there has never yet been such a kind of light as in this year on Rosh Hashanah,

it is understood that this too is revealed on the festival of Sukkot,

that is, the Simchat Beit HaShoevah is in a manner that has never been before.

And one does it through breaking the fence and dancing in the street and with the street and with all who are found in the street,

and likewise regarding oneself,

that not only does one dance with understanding and comprehension,

but one dances with simplicity,

with the feet,

and this lifts up the heart with the head.

And this is even more speedily,

that speedily in our days, literally, one should dance opposite our righteous Mashiach,

together with all the synagogues and study halls in the diaspora,

with the entire area that surrounds them

(where they brought out the joy from the synagogue and study hall,

and made the street dance).

And the matter is not removed from its simple meaning,

and whoever increases is praiseworthy in all these details.

And this is also connected to "whoever is eager is praiseworthy" - that he will increase in the eagerness of the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach,

And Moshe and Aharon with them,

together with all the ushpizin,

Avraham Yitzchak and Yaakov Moshe Aharon Yosef and David and also Shlomo,

And likewise the Chassidic ushpizin,

the Baal Shem Tov and the Maggid,

the Alter Rebbe the Mitteler Rebbe,

the Tzemach Tzedek and the Rebbe Maharash and the Rebbe Rashab,

and the Nasi of our generation,

Yosef,

who is opposite Shimon,

And speedily in our days, literally.