English translation — שיחת ש"פ חוקת בלק, י"ב תמוז ה'תשמ"ו.

B'S"D.

The farbrengen is connected to 12-13 Tammuz,

as the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah writes in his notes¹,

that in this there are two matters:

a) On 12 Tammuz is his birthday,

b) And in some years after this - in the year 5687 (1927) - on 12-13 Tammuz was his redemption,

as the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah writes²,

that "on 12 Tammuz

(my birthday)...

they informed me that a firm order had arrived that they would release me,

however, since it is their holiday

[and the offices were closed]...

therefore I will receive the certificate of freedom on the next day, namely on the fourth day, 13 Tammuz."

And although the regular order of the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah was to make the gathering and farbrengen on 13 Tammuz

(and sometimes - after midnight)

— however, in this year the farbrengen is held on 12 Tammuz for several reasons,

and primarily — because it is the day of Shabbos,

"on the day of your rejoicing — these are Shabbosos"³,

and a day of rest,

similar to the day of redemption — that one has redemption and rest from all matters that cause confusion,

and even from work and exertion,

because "all your work is done"⁴,

and one has only the matter of delight

(after having already prepared everything beforehand).

Consequently, it is fitting that the farbrengen in connection with the holiday of redemption should be on the day of Shabbos

(12 Tammuz),

since Shabbos is connected with the content of the matter of redemption.

And in addition to this — 12 Tammuz is also the birthday of the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah. And the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah himself connects it with his redemption on this day

(in the aforementioned note),

from which it is understood that his birthday on 12 Tammuz gave the power that on that very day his redemption should be.

As is understood simply, that first and foremost

(before there is a redemption for him)

there must be the birthday,

afterwards,

after several years,

the imprisonment and the redemption on 12 Tammuz were in the power of his birthday;

only on the birthday this stood in potential and concealment,

and at the time of the redemption this came out in the open and in revelation and to indicate,

that most of the letters of "Geulah" (redemption) and "Gilui" (revelation) are the same,

which proves their connection,

as is known that the letters of the name enliven and bring into being the thing and indicate the content of the thing that is called by this name⁵].

And in addition to this — it can be said that also in the matter of the redemption itself, 12 Tammuz includes within itself 13 Tammuz

(in addition to that which 12 Tammuz is his birthday, in whose power the redemption was brought about).

With an introduction:

The Alter Rebbe explains⁶ the difference between the holiday of Pesach and Chanukah and Purim,

that the holiday of Pesach is on the day the miracle occurred,

but Chanukah and Purim are on the day of rest. And this is connected with the difference between a Yom Tov from the Torah

(the holiday of Pesach)

and a Yom Tov from the words of the Scribes

(Chanukah and Purim) *⁶.

And based on this it can be said that likewise it was regarding the redemption of 12-13 Tammuz

(a Yom Tov from the words of the Scribes):

12 Tammuz — the day of victory over the opponent

(similar to the victory of the war on the 25th of Kislev),

and 13 Tammuz — the day of rest afterwards on which the certificate of freedom was given

(in an official manner),

and that day was established as the day of farbrengen

(as is the regular practice), as mentioned above

(similar to the day of rest on the 25th of Kislev,

which was established as the first day of Chanukah).

Since every matter in holiness includes within it other matters of holiness,

so too a Yom Tov from the words of the Scribes includes within it also the quality of a Yom Tov from the Torah,

and in the manner of "all that the Sages instituted, they instituted similar to that which is from the Torah"⁷,

and a matter from the Torah includes within it matters from the words of the Scribes,

and as our Sages, of blessed memory, said, "There is nothing that is not hinted at in the Torah"⁸, it is understood from this,

that the holiday of redemption of 12-13 Tammuz, although in general it is in the manner of a Yom Tov from the words of the Scribes,

has within it also something of a Yom Tov from the Torah,

which is established on the day the miracle occurred,

and consequently it is understood that also 12 Tammuz itself includes within it also 13 Tammuz.

And particularly according to what was stated above,

that 12 Tammuz is the birthday of the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah,

which caused the redemption on that same day.

The connection of 12 Tammuz

(birthday)

with the redemption is even stronger in this year:

On 12 Tammuz of this year — the beginning of the 107th year of the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah — one begins reciting Chapter 107 in the Book of Psalms.

According to the enactment and custom

(of the Baal Shem Tov,

and revealed and publicized by the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah⁹)

to recite the chapter of Psalms corresponding to the number of his years. And it is known¹⁰ that even when the soul is in the World of Truth, there is an addition regarding time in continuation of the years the soul was in the body,

as is known from the notation of the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah¹¹ that his father,

the Rebbe

(the Maharash) N"E,

told him,

that "on this day

(20 MarCheshvan)

eighty-four years were completed since the descent of my soul into the lower world..."

behold, each of the holy Rebbes, our teachers and forefathers, will say a discourse on the verse of Chapter 84" — and this was after the passing of the Rebbe N"E in the year 5680.

And Chapter 107 consists of the psalm "Give thanks to Hashem, for He is good, for His kindness endures forever,"

and our Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding this psalm¹² "Four need to give thanks... one who was imprisoned in the house of captivity and went out,"

the situation of the Baal HaMaaser VeHaGeulah at that time. Therefore, he delivered discourses connected to his redemption in the year 5687, beginning "Baruch HaGomel LeChayavim Tovot,"

where he brings and explains the aforementioned statement of our Sages, of blessed memory, "Four need to give thanks...,"

as already printed

(and thus this is for all generations¹³)

the discourses beginning "Baruch HaGomel" of the year 5687.

And in the language of the Chassidim — the year "Prazat,"

"Prazat teishev Yerushalayim,"

which is stated regarding the future redemption¹⁴,

as is known that all redemptions are one concept¹⁵,

and especially a redemption of a Nasi in Israel,

for "the Nasi is everything"

(as Rashi writes in our parshah¹⁶),

and not only "everything" of his generation,

but of all generations,

as is known what is stated in Kehilat Yaakov¹⁷ that "Nasi" is an acronym for "Nitzotzo shel Yaakov Avinu,"

for the soul of Yaakov

(and from this it is understood regarding every Nasi in Israel)

"includes all the souls of Israel from beginning to end,"

as explained in the Iggeret HaKodesh of the Alter Rebbe¹⁸.

And the Nasi of our generation,

the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah,

fills his place,

fills his place completely,

and moreover — in a manner of "ascending in holiness"¹⁹

(as in all matters of holiness),

until an ascent beyond comparison,

for specifically this is the true concept of ascent²⁰:

As long as there is a progression and ascent from strength to strength that is relative to the previous strength,

it is not a true progression and ascent,

because he has not entirely departed from the previous strength;

true progression and ascent is specifically when he departs entirely from there.

An example of this in Torah study:

There is a study that is relative to the previous level. Afterwards, there is a study that is beyond comparison to the previous level,

such as the study of the Talmud Yerushalmi relative to the Talmud Bavli,

for which reason Rabbi Zeira needed to fast "so that the Babylonian Gemara would be forgotten from him" in order to be able to study the Talmud Yerushalmi²¹,

because of the lack of comparison between them²².

It follows that the redemption of the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah,

the Nasi of our generation,

is a redemption of all Jews in this generation,

from whom come the Jews,

their descendants and their descendants' descendants,

in subsequent generations,

and they are the sum total of the Jews in all previous generations — consequently, he is a Nasi and his redemption is a redemption of all Jews of all generations

(previous and subsequent),

and since "Bereishit was for the sake of Israel"²³ — it follows that he is a Nasi and his redemption is a redemption of the entire world!

Discourse (in the style of a sichah)

beginning "Hodu LaHashem Ki Tov Ki LeOlam Chasdo."

In addition to the general lesson of 12-13 Tammuz in every year,

there is an additional lesson from the specific arrangement of this year regarding the days of the week,

and also — beginning from the Torah of the time,

Torah of truth and Torah of life,

a directive in life,

and as the statement of the Zohar²⁴ "The Holy One, blessed be He, looked into the Torah and created the world; a person looks into the Torah and sustains the world."

And prefacing what has been discussed many times,

that although the lesson is from a specific arrangement in a particular year,

it is nevertheless an eternal Torah and directive for all times and years;

only in this year it stands with emphasis and revelation,

but it is a continuous effect upon all years,

until this arrangement occurs again,

at which time it is

(not, Heaven forbid, interrupted, but)

in a more elevated manner.

In the arrangement of this year — 12-13 Tammuz falls on Shabbat and Sunday:

And in the weekly parshah — on Shabbat, Parshas Chukas-Balak.

What is understood from this,

that both matters

(the fixation in the days of the week and the fixation in the weekly Torah portion)

contain within themselves a revolving directive:

Since the Festival of Redemption is two days,

the 12th and 13th of Tammuz,

the Sabbath day and Sunday,

it is understood that from this there is a directive from the Sabbath day,

and a second directive from Sunday,

and a third directive — from the connection of both of them together,

for the redemption is one thing

(only it extends over two days).

And likewise regarding the weekly Torah portion:

Parshat Chukat and Parshat Balak are two separate portions of the fifty-three Torah portions²⁵. However, when they are connected

(as in this year)

— they become one portion,

as is evident from the fact that then seven aliyot are read

(not fourteen aliyot).

And especially according to the custom of Ashkenazim,²⁶

that the "fourth" aliyah connects both portions together, the end of Parshat Chukat and the beginning of Parshat Balak,

and one recites one blessing before and after it,

as has been discussed many times.²⁷

Thus it is understood from this,

that from Parshat Chukat-Balak,

there is a directive from Parshat Chukat,

a directive from Parshat Balak,

and in the fixation of this year

(when they are connected)

— a directive from the connection of both of them together.

The lesson from the Sabbath day and Sunday:

Shabbat is above matters of the mundane and matters of toil and labor,

then "all your work is done",

and it is entirely delight

(as above, section 1).

And within this itself, there are two aspects in Shabbat — as explained in many places²⁸ and as discussed above:²⁹

One aspect,

that Shabbat is the seventh day, coming in sequence after the six weekdays,

and Shabbat brings completion

("Vayechulu"³⁰)

to the weekdays that precede it,

and from it all the days of the following week are blessed;³¹

and a second aspect,

that Shabbat is above time.³²

In contrast, Sunday,

is a weekday,

when one is occupied with labor and toil in worldly matters.

Based on this, one will understand the lesson from the Festival of Redemption in the fixation of this year,

on the Sabbath day and Sunday:

In the mission that the Master of Joy and Redemption gave to every Jew

(in his maamarim,

sichot and letters, etc.),

there are matters and times where and when it is required that he be a "Shabbat-like Jew",

above mundane activities,

and in both modes:

that he brings completion and is related to the six weekdays

(like Shabbat is the seventh day,

a part of time),

or that he is entirely above mundane matters

(like Shabbat is above time);

and afterwards there are matters and times where and when it is required that he be a "weekday Jew",

who occupies himself with the thirty-nine labors in order to effect change in this physical world.

That is to say:

One might think,

since he stands on the level of "Shabbat",

above the world — that this is sufficient,

and he will seclude himself for himself and have nothing to do with the world.

For this, there is the directive from the fact that the Festival of Redemption is on the Sabbath day and on Sunday,

that it is not enough to remain in the state of "Shabbat",

rather one must draw down from Shabbat into the days and matters of the mundane,

beginning from Sunday

(and through this — into all the weekdays),

but not that this remains a Sunday of the weekdays,

rather — "one day"

(as Sunday is called in the Torah³³),

"on which the Holy One, blessed be He, was alone in His world",³⁴

that even though "In the beginning, Elokim created"³⁵

(on the first day)

a great world,

"the heavens and the earth",

"the heavens to include their hosts and the earth to include their hosts",³⁶

"how numerous are Your works"³⁷ and "how great are Your works",³⁸

one brings about that in every detail of creation it should be evident that it is connected with the Unique One of the world.

This is the lesson from the Festival of Redemption in the fixation of this year,

on the Sabbath day and on Sunday,

that in fulfilling the mission of the Master of the Redemption, sometimes it is required that one be "Shabbat-like",

and that alone is not sufficient. Rather, it is also required that one bring this down into the weekday.

And in addition to this, there is the lesson of connecting both of them together

(that the Festival of Redemption is on the day of Shabbat and on Sunday)

— that one must perform both services together,

both the service of "Shabbat" and the service of Sunday

(weekday).

And especially since we are in the period of the heels of Moshiach,

there is certainly no time to wait until one will perform the second service,

one must perform both of them simultaneously and in one continuum!

This is the general directive of the fixing of the redemption in this year

(the day of Shabbat and Sunday)

— regarding the totality of the service that the master of the redemption demands from each one.

In more detail, this is the directive regarding that which the master of the redemption demands in the first maamar that he sent for the celebration of the redemption for the first time

(in the year 5688)

beginning "Ten who sit and engage in Torah"³⁹ — because He looked into the Torah and created the world,

from the thanksgiving connected with the redemption,

one can extract the content and the directive that each one must extract from the redemption in his actual service in the world.

And in the maamar itself — the content of the entire maamar is expressed in its "head"

(the opening discourse)

of the maamar,

analogous to the head of a person which includes within itself the life-force of all the limbs of the body and also leads them as they stand in their place⁴⁰:

The "head" of the maamar is — "Ten who sit and engage in Torah".

From this is immediately understood the lesson and the directive for every single Jew — all of whom were redeemed in the redemption of the 12th-13th of Tammuz,

as the master of the redemption writes in his letter⁴¹:

"Not only me did the Holy One, blessed be He, redeem on the 12th of Tammuz,

but also all the lovers of our holy Torah,

observers of the commandments,

and also those who are called by the name Israel" — from which it is understood that the directive of "Ten who sit and engage in Torah" is for all Jews,

both for those who stand on the most elevated level,

"lovers of our holy Torah", and also for those who stand for now on a lower level,

even one who is "called by the name Israel",

who has not yet reached engagement in Torah.

Thus, the explanation of this — as discussed in the farbrengen before this⁴² — is that in the service of "Ten who sit and engage in Torah" there are two interpretations:

One for those who stand on an elevated level,

from whom is demanded the ultimate perfection of "Ten who sit and engage in Torah",

in a manner of lechatchila

(as will be explained in section 57),

and a second lesson for those who stand for now on the level of "called by the name Israel",

from whom is demanded "Ten who sit and engage in Torah" at least b'dieved

(as will be explained in section 60).

The lesson of "Ten who sit and engage in Torah" — as it is in ultimate perfection:

"Ten":

Ten from Israel must gather together,

for ten is the perfect number that includes all types and divisions among Jews,

as is the law in the blessing after the meal

(which includes all matters of sustenance that are called by the name bread⁴³)

according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva⁴⁴,

that from ten and above there is no change in the wording of the blessing

(not according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Hai Gaon⁴⁵ that "according to the multitude of the congregation they bless").

That is, even with a hundred and a thousand and a myriad

(which is the ultimate of division)

— one makes the same blessing as with ten.

And when ten from Israel gather together, the plain meaning is not that they remain ten separate individuals,

but rather a new reality is created of a holy congregation⁴⁶ — a congregation is no less than ten⁴⁷ — love of Israel and unity of Israel.

"Who sit":

The study of Torah of this holy congregation of ten from Israel must be in a manner of "who sit",

"with settlement"

(settled mind),

for then one can

(better)

absorb the words of Torah — for "with settlement" is one of the forty-eight qualities through which the Torah is acquired⁴⁸

[as is known that forty-eight (qualities through which the Torah is acquired) is the gematria of "chayil"⁴⁹ — "and Israel makes chayil"⁵⁰:

Israel, the Torah, and the Holy One, blessed be He, are all one⁵¹,

and Israel (which is all one with Torah) "makes chayil",

the forty-eight qualities through which the Torah is acquired].

"And they occupy themselves":

It is known the explanation of the Baal HaSimcha VeHaGeulah⁵² regarding the explanation of occupying oneself with Torah — and similarly the Baal HaGeulah⁵³ explains the language "to occupy oneself with words of Torah" — that the study of Torah must be like the analogy of a businessman's involvement in his own business. A hired worker thinks about the business only during his work hours,

unlike the business owner who thinks about it constantly,

to the point that he even dreams about it,

because "one is only shown

(in a dream)

that which stems from the thoughts of his heart

(during the day)

"⁵⁴. So too must be the occupation with Torah — "and they occupy themselves" — as if it is his own business and he thinks about it constantly — similar to and in the manner of "his Torah is his craft"⁵⁵.

"In Torah":

The occupation with Torah must be in a manner that he nullifies himself to Torah and throws himself entirely into "Torah"

(into Torah),

so that he does not learn Torah in a manner where he initially has a premise in his will and intellect and he also wants to impose this into Torah,

but rather Torah teaches him

(as the saying of the Baal HaGeulah⁵⁶),

he nullifies his will and wisdom to the will and wisdom of Torah,

and the will and wisdom of Torah become his will and wisdom.

This is the explanation of the words of the Sema⁵⁷ that the mind of householders is the opposite of the mind of Torah⁵⁸:

The Sema is not speaking about an ignoramus, because what would be novel,

rather he speaks about one who can study Torah,

and has ordination for rabbinical authority,

he may teach and he may judge,

but he has placed himself into the category of householders,

his occupation is that of a householder,

"Zevulun" — says the Sema that the mind of a householder is the opposite of the mind of Torah and he may not rule on a halachic matter,

because he has householder-type premises,

the premises of the world,

which are the opposite of the mind of Torah,

and he may want to impose his premises into Torah,

and not allow the will and wisdom of Torah to become his will and wisdom.

The householder can engage in pilpul with the rabbi regarding the matter in Torah,

and can storm — "for what reason did you judge me"⁵⁹,

and the rabbi must answer him in order to refute the claims. And on the contrary — being a proper rabbi, he must initially refute

(even before the other asks)

that this is not his own invention, Heaven forbid,

rather this is written in the Shulchan Aruch, section such-and-such, paragraph such-and-such,

in order to prevent a dispute like that of Korach and his assembly. Even though they were punished and were swallowed and consumed⁶⁰ — one must also refute them,

and uproot the "root bearing gall and wormwood"⁶¹.

And the rabbi must know,

that this also pertains to himself. For through the fact that he explains this to another,

there comes to him an increase in understanding and comprehension,

"and from my students more than from all of them"⁶².

He could nevertheless argue,

that it is beneath his dignity,

he has had ordination for more than three years,

and is indeed a great rabbi,

and has rabbinical students — what more does he need?!

We know the story regarding the High Priest who served for eighty years⁶³,

and what came out afterwards!

When someone argues that he has served for eighty years,

and he is already a complete tzaddik — he is already "finished"⁶⁴ and needs to do nothing more,

and he can be a ruler and master not only in his surroundings but in the entire world. They tell him — "Do not trust in yourself etc."⁶⁵,

and we know what came out of that High Priest who served for eighty years.

And we have a lesson on this connected with our parshah

(Parshas Chukas)

in connection with the water of purification:

The Mishnah says in Chagigah⁶⁶,

that "one who immersed for holy matters is considered prepared for holy matters, [but] is prohibited for the water of purification":

He may be pure for holy matters — would that this were the reality — meaning that he stands on the level of holiness,

with all the virtues therein. We are not speaking about one who rules on a question in order to find favor in the eyes of householders,

for then he ceases to be holy,

then he becomes a householder whose mind is the opposite of the mind of Torah;

rather we speak about one who is pure for holy matters.

Nevertheless,

in order to deal with the water of purification and to purify from the impurity of a corpse,

the father of fathers of impurity⁶⁷ — his purity for holy matters is not sufficient,

rather he requires a new immersion,

and immersion is the concept of self-nullification

(as the Mitteler Rebbe explains⁶⁸),

he requires a nullification of the senses

(the level of nullification relative to holy matters is not sufficient),

not to nullify another,

rather to nullify oneself!

And if not - he is forbidden for the sin-offering and cannot purify the father of fathers,

not considering that he is pure for the holy with all the virtues therein!

As it was with Moses our teacher:

Moses received the entire Torah from Sinai,

which the giving of the Torah will not be again

(as Chassidus repeats in many places)

- then Moses already stood seemingly at the ultimate perfection in knowledge of the Torah.

Nevertheless, it states in the Midrash "On every single matter that the Holy One, blessed be He, would say to Moses, He would tell him its impurity and its purity. When He reached the section 'Speak to the priests,' Moses said to Him: 'Master of the Universe, if this one became impure, what will be his purification?'

He did not answer him,

At that moment Moses' face became darkened,

When He reached the section of the Red Heifer, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him...

This is its purification, etc.'"

Regarding this, the lesson for each one is:

He can be a great one in Torah,

pure for the holy,

and have rabbinical students etc. etc.

But in order to purify the father of fathers - he needs to have a new immersion,

a new nullification,

and if not, he is forbidden for the sin-offering and there can remain a reality in the world of the father of fathers of impurity of the impurity of a corpse!

What this

(impurity of a corpse)

came about because of the primordial serpent - which was also a "scholar",

as the Gemara says that it could argue "The words of the master and the words of the student,

whose words are heard?"!...

And in more detail:

In order to ensure that among the students there will be true vitality

(the opposite of impurity of a corpse)

- the teacher must have a new immersion,

a new nullification,

in order to teach the students that it must be "And you who cling to the Lord your God are all alive today",

not "you who cling" to the teacher...

and through this they become connected with the Lord your God,

but "you who cling to the Lord your God"!

What this is the matter in simple letters. Afterwards he wants to know where it is stated in Chassidus.

This is understood from what the Alter Rebbe explains in a letter

(in Iggeret HaKodesh),

i.e., that one need not reach one who specifically understands a Chassidic discourse,

rather this also applies to one who is connected to a letter,

until - that the explanation there is also understood for one for whom this is the first letter that he learns,

because he explains it in simple letters,

and with a parable,

which a parable is simply needed in order to make the matter understandable to those who would not understand it without the parable:

The Alter Rebbe explains what Abraham our father said "And I am dust and ashes" - that in this merit the Jewish people merited the ashes of the heifer

(which purifies from impurity of a corpse):

Abraham our father said this "regarding the illumination of his soul that illuminates in his body from the light of the supernal kindness, and his attribute is the attribute of great love",

and one might think that "his attributes are of the kind and type of the supernal attributes" in the supernal Sefirot of Atzilut,

therefore Abraham our father said "And I am dust and ashes",

that "his attribute, the attribute of kindness and love that illuminates in him and is clothed in his body, even though it is the attribute of the supernal love and kindness of Atzilut etc.,

nevertheless, when it descends below to be clothed in his body through the chain of descent etc. through many contractions,

there is no comparison or likeness to the essence of the light of the supernal love and kindness of Atzilut",

And he gives a parable for this from a burnt tree

["a wood that does not produce light etc."]

from which only "dust and ashes" remain. So the value and likeness of the attribute of kindness and love of Abraham regarding the supernal attributes in Atzilut is only "like the value and likeness of the essence of the dust that became ashes to its essence and quality when it was a tree desirable to look at and good for food, etc."

And the conduct of Abraham our father "And I am dust and ashes" - becomes thereafter a lesson for all Jews,

"so that he may command his children and his household after him etc.",

that in every Jew there must be something of this.

And as understood from this letter,

this does not concern a trivial matter,

but rather a most essential matter - connected with the supernal Sefirot of Atzilut and with the Patriarchs of the world,

"Abraham was one".

Returning to our matter - the "ten who sit and engage" must be "in Torah",

that he nullifies himself and gives himself entirely into "Torah"

(in Torah),

so that he nullifies his will and intellect to the will and intellect of the Torah.

And in the instruction regarding the festival of redemption of "ten who sit and engage in Torah" - there comes a special lesson from the 12th-13th of Tammuz in the fixed calendar of this year,

on the Sabbath day and on Sunday:

Shabbos and Torah are one thing,

for "the Torah was given on Shabbos to all opinions." From this it is understood that Shabbos gives additional strength for the service of the Festival of Redemption - "ten who sit and engage in Torah":

Torah study with ten

(the completeness of the number),

in a manner of settled mind,

and as a baal habayis,

that Torah is his entire occupation,

and "in Torah" - he gives himself entirely into it and nullifies himself to the will and wisdom of the Torah.

And Shabbos gives strength in Torah study in both matters

(regarding the two matters mentioned above in Shabbos,

the seventh day which is above time):

both that Torah

(Shabbos)

is above time and world,

and that Torah

(Shabbos)

is connected and gives forth directives in worldly matters.

Afterwards comes the directive from this that the Festival of Redemption is

(on the day of Shabbos and)

also on the first day:

One might think that since one is a Rav who is immersed in Torah study all day long,

a "Shabbosdiker Yid",

in the manner of "those who sit and engage in Torah",

and specifically he can rule on a halachic question,

unlike the opinion of the baal habayis who is found in the world which is opposite to daas Torah - he

(the Rav)

can completely isolate himself from the world.

For this there is the directive from that the redemption is also on the first day of the weekdays:

It is true indeed,

specifically the Rav has the power to rule on a halachic question and not a baal habayis.

But on the other hand he must know,

that in order to rule a halacha one must simply know the reality in the world regarding which one rules.

As is told regarding the sharp-witted ones,

that a yeshiva bochur who sits in yeshiva and learns Yoreh Deah about a gizzard and a membrane of the brain etc. - it is not necessarily that he knows the actual difference in reality between a gizzard and a membrane of the brain!

In order to know the reality in the world - one must go out from the day of Shabbos and the level of Shabbos,

because one does not judge on Shabbos,

and all the more so that then there is no slaughtering of fowl etc.,

one must make a "Havdalah" between Shabbos and weekday and go out from Shabbos into a weekday

(beginning from the first day),

and see the reality in this physical world,

then one can rule on a question properly.

That is, simply:

In order to rule on a question properly in worldly matters, the Rav must sometimes ask the advice of a baal habayis.

And on the contrary:

Sometimes a baal habayis can give better advice than the Rav would have himself,

because he is found in this world and knows of worldly occurrences.

For example:

In order to know how to rule regarding a matter connected to astronomy,

for example,

one must simply have someone who knows astronomy. He may have studied the entire Torah,

but if he has not studied the part of astronomy in the Torah etc. - he cannot know the reality in order to know how to rule regarding this matter. For this one must have the knowledge of the wisdom of astronomy. So much so that in this time one must attain the wisdom of astronomy from the nations of the world,

as the Rambam writes

[not in the Moreh Nevuchim,

but in the Yad HaChazakah,

the book of Halachos]

"And how is each and every one of these things known etc. It is the wisdom of the seasons and gematrias about which the Greek sages composed many books and they are now found in the hands of the wise,

but the books composed by the sages of Israel who were in the days of the prophets from the tribe of Yissachar have not reached us,

and since all these things are with clear proofs etc. we do not concern ourselves with the author etc. even if the nations composed them etc."

What this is, is the directive from this that the redemption is on the day of Shabbos and on the first day,

that it is not enough to remain on the level of Shabbos,

rather one must go out into the "first day" and ascertain the reality in the world in weekday matters.

Together with this, however, it is not the simple meaning,

that the "first day" of the days and matters of the weekday

(worldly concepts)

remains weekday,

rather this is a "day of gathering",

"on which the Holy One, blessed be He, was alone in His world",

that the intention is - that the directives of the Torah

(Shabbos)

of the Rav,

should be drawn down into the world,

that the world should conduct itself according to the directives of the Torah,

so that in every single detail of creation one sees how it is connected to the Unique One of the world.

That this is the connection of the two matters - the day of Shabbat and the day of Sunday:

The power to rule on a question is specifically with a rabbi,

whose essence is Torah. But in order to rule properly he must know the reality in the world

(Sunday),

and sometimes ask for advice from a layman and the like.

But the intention in this is not,

that the layman has the power to rule on a question,

rather according to the advice of the layman the rabbi knows how to rule the halacha and to act so that the reality in the world will conduct itself according to the instructions of the Torah.

And if the rabbi came to him - the layman - for advice - there is nevertheless an incomparable distance between a good advice and a ruling of law!

A ruling of law - another rabbi can rule

(not a layman whose opinion is contrary to the opinion of the Torah);

a good advice - also a layman can give,

and sometimes he can give a better advice than the rabbi has,

as above.

But this is only advice,

not a ruling of law. Specifically the rabbi can rule a question according to the law based on the advice,

and only then does it become a ruling in Torah.

And regarding this there is the instruction of the determination of this year

(the day of Shabbat and the day of Sunday)

regarding the second interpretation in "ten who sit and engage in Torah",

for those who still hold at "he is called by the name Israel",

one for whom the name Israel is only a nickname,

until he is even ashamed to sign with this name:

"Ten":

First of all one must gather together in ten. For ten includes all Jews,

who are divided into ten types - "your heads your tribes" until "hewer of your wood",

all types and divisions among Jews,

whose opinions are not equal. One gathers together in ten and through this becomes unified.

"Who sit":

The gathering together of the ten must be in a manner of settlement.

That is, not only at a time that is conducive and worthy for this,

like on 12-13 Tammuz,

rather in a manner of settlement,

so that this has an influence in all times.

"And engage":

The unification must express itself in actual engagement - that they engage in the same engagement.

That is, not only that one does not suspect the other that he will touch his livelihood

[although the Gemara says that "no one touches what is prepared for his fellow"),

they make an engagement together.

That all this applies to every Jew,

even "Zevulun",

businesspeople

(whose essence is not the engagement of Torah),

until also one who "is called by the name Israel",

and still does not hold at "ten who sit and engage in Torah".

Afterwards comes to the perfection of "Zevulun" - "in Torah":

The "ten who sit and engage" comes out also in the study of Torah together.

And in this comes an addition of study and power from the holiday of redemption in the determination of this year,

on the day of Shabbat and on the day of Sunday - that also for one whose main service is in worldly and weekday matters

(Sunday),

there must be "Shabbat-ness",

Torah.

As discussed above,

that both services,

there where "Shabbat-ness" is required

(Torah)

and there where "weekday-ness" is required

(service in the world),

must come together simultaneously.

The study in this is even stronger than the weekly portion - Parshat Chukat Balak,

which also consists of two portions,

which signify two opposite teachings

(like the two opposite teachings of the day of Shabbat and the day of Sunday),

and how they both come together and become one portion in the Torah

(with seven aliyot,

until the fourth connects both portions,

as above).

The explanation of the instruction from Parshat Chukat Balak will be understood according to the explanation of the name of these portions

("Chukat" and "Balak")

according to the custom of Israel,

that the name of the portion includes within itself the content of the entire portion:

"Chukat":

It is explained in the discourses of Chassidus on Parshat Chukat and Parshat Bechukotai,

that "Chukat" is from the term engraving. The advantage of the letters of engraving over the letters of writing is:

In letters of writing,

ink on parchment,

the letters in ink are an additional substance on the parchment,

and even when one connects them and writes the letters on the parchment,

they remain separate entities,

and one can separate them.

Not so letters of engraving are carved from within the good stone and pearl

(and the like),

that is, they become one thing with the thing in which they are carved.

The lesson from this:

Judaism in general and Torah in particular must be for a Jew in a manner of "chokah,"

engraved within him,

not as something additional to his existence,

but rather his entire existence is the existence of Torah,

and were it not for this, he has no existence. In a manner of "I have appointed it as the bread of my portion" - that this becomes his bread and sustenance.

"Balak":

Prefacing the question

(as discussed previously)

- how was it established to call a portion in the Torah by the name "Balak,"

who was a wicked person:

It is well known the principle,

as Rashi brings in his commentary on the verse "These are the generations of Noah, Noah was a righteous man" - "since it mentioned him, it praises him, as it is said 'the memory of the righteous is for a blessing,'"

and the opposite regarding a wicked person - "the name of the wicked shall rot...

we do not mention them by their names" - so how was it established to call an entire portion in the Torah by the name "Balak,"

who was an enemy of Israel "more than all enemies"?!

Granted, regarding Korach - besides the main point that he was a Jew

(and among Jews themselves - son of Yitzhar etc.),

and a son causes merit to his father, the sons of Korach etc.,

one can say that he repented etc.,

and especially according to what is explained in the inner dimension of the Torah about the greatness of his virtue of Korach etc.;

but one cannot say so regarding the enemy of Israel, Balak.

And the explanation of this - with a preface:

The "Sefer HaLikutim" of the discourses of the Tzemach Tzedek has been printed

[which is a compilation (and he brings on every subject) of Pshat, Remez, Drush, and Sod,

Nigleh, Chassidus, and Kabbalah etc.),

a collection of the discourses of the Tzemach Tzedek,

and there is an entry there with the heading "Balak,"

where several lines are copied from the places in the discourses of the Tzemach Tzedek where it discusses Balak. From there one can extract the content and lesson in the service of G-d from the word "Balak,"

and especially when one delves into the body of the discourses.

In one copy

(in Sefer HaLikutim, entry Balak)

it is brought

(with references to the Prophets and Writings and their commentaries etc.)

that "Balak" is from the language of death and excision.

That is, the content of "Balak" is exactly the opposite of the content of "Chukat":

Not only is "Balak" not a matter of engraving within him,

but it is not even like the matter of writing,

where there is at least a connection of two separate things

(ink and parchment)

- this is a matter of separation

(division)

and death,

the complete opposite of life!

And the lesson from this will be understood by prefacing a second copy in the aforementioned Sefer HaLikutim,

where he brings from the Shelah

[who is also included in what is stated in the continuation of the discourse of 5672,

that "all the authors until the Shach and Taz wrote their works with the Holy Spirit." And note,

that according to Jewish custom, one calls the Shelah - the holy Shelah,

like the holy Ohr HaChaim),

and this is his language:

"Balak and Balaam were both great wise men, but for evil etc.,

and Balak was wiser and knew the great chain of the lineage of the king of Israel, which is the kingdom of the House of David and the Messiah,

and he knew that this mighty one would come from him and he trembled over the matter because he understood that the pure is given from the impure etc.,

and therefore he devised thoughts to separate the attachment of Israel from their Father in Heaven, G-d forbid,

and to reverse the attachment, and then the mighty one who would come from him would be a sign for himself etc."

[And it can be said that it is apparently like what we find regarding Korach:

"Korach, who was clever, what did he see to engage in this folly? His eye misled him,

he saw a great chain coming from him, Samuel who was equal to Moses and Aaron, he said 'for his sake I will be saved,'

and twenty-four watches standing from his sons, all of them prophesying with the Holy Spirit etc.,

he said, 'Is it possible that all this greatness is destined to come from me and I will be silent?'

Therefore he joined to come to that strength that he heard from Moses that all are lost and one is saved etc., he erred and attributed it to himself etc."]

And we must explain the foundation of the words of the Shelah

("And (Balak) knew the great chain of the lineage of the kingdom of Israel, which is the kingdom of the House of David and Mashiach,

and this mighty one will come from him"):

Ruth the Moabite descended from Balak king of Moab,

as the verse emphasizes that she is Ruth the Moabite.

That is, that even though a convert who converts is like a newborn child,

and "they shall not say to us

(to a convert)

remember the deeds of your fathers" - the verse is precise in calling her Ruth the Moabite,

which traces her lineage to Balak king of Moab. And from Ruth the Moabite descended King David

(the kingdom of the House of David and Mashiach),

as it is stated about Ruth "the mother of the kingdom."

That is, that even though generally lineage follows the father,

here they trace the lineage of the kingdom of the House of David to Ruth - "the mother of the kingdom." Based on this, the foundation of the words of the Shelah is understood, that Balak knew the great chain that would descend from him - the kingdom of the House of David and Mashiach,

even though Ruth is a convert who converted like a newborn child, etc.

And to note from what the Rambam writes in the Laws of Kings:

"Even though in the portion of Balaam

(in the portion of Balak)

it is stated that he prophesied about the two anointed ones,

the first anointed one who is David...

and about the final anointed one who will arise from his descendants who will save Israel

[in the end],

and there he says 'I see him, but not now' - this is David,

'I behold him, but not near' - this is King Mashiach,

'a star shall go forth from Jacob' - this is David,

'and a scepter shall arise from Israel' - this is Mashiach",

and so on regarding the continuation of the verses in the portion.

Based on this, one will understand the lesson of "Balak" in the service of G-d - and with this it is understood why they established to call the Torah portion by the name "Balak":

Every Jew is the only son of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and according to the parable of the Baal Shem Tov that every Jew is like an only son born to elderly parents,

it is therefore understood the greatness of the affection of the Almighty for Jews.

So when a Jew makes a reckoning,

and a person knows in his soul,

how he behaved yesterday,

he understands that this is not at all appropriate for an only son of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And even if he has repented,

he knows that afterwards he falls again,

until he says three times a day "forgive us"

(as explained in the glosses)

- it is therefore understood the greatness of the descent that this is for an only son of the Holy One, blessed be He,

until this is a state of excision and death

(Balak)

in spirituality.

So the Jew can become despondent,

that an only son of the Holy One, blessed be He, has fallen to such an extent.

And all the more so - the question arises - how can one demand of him "serve G-d with joy",

when he is in such a state?!

Regarding this, we have the lesson from the interpretation of the Shelah in the matter of Balak - that in addition to the fact that "no outcast shall be cast out from Him",

every Jew must know

(all the more so from the fact that Balak (a non-Jew) knew regarding himself),

that he is a part of the great chain,

of the kingdom of the House of David and Mashiach,

Mashiach descends from him,

and he descends from Mashiach,

or both things together,

and especially according to the known fact that every Jew has within him a spark of Mashiach - it is therefore understandable that he has no reason to be despondent,

and that he must serve G-d with joy and a good heart,

and also influence other Jews that they should stand in joy,

knowing the great chain with which they are connected.

And in the service of man - this is generally the service of subjugation and transformation,

through the service of repentance,

which is especially connected with Mashiach,

as the statement of Mashiach: "I have come to bring the righteous back in repentance."

According to the above, the lesson of "Chukat" specifically and "Balak" specifically is understood - two opposite lessons:

"Chukat" is the service - that for him Judaism is engraved in his nature,

his entire existence. And in general - the service of the righteous;

"Balak" is the service of subjugation and transformation

(the service of repentance)

in a manner of self-sacrifice,

that not looking at the fact that he transgressed a sin - a matter of excision and death,

the opposite extreme of "Chukat" - he knows that he is connected to the great chain,

consequently he repents, etc.

Afterwards there is the third lesson of the joining of the two portions together,

so that they become one portion - that both services,

of "Chukat" and "Balak",

must come together,

simultaneously - to bring the righteous back in repentance,

the service of the righteous together with the service of repentance.

And the connection is even greater than the connection of the day of Shabbat and the day of Rosh Chodesh

(the establishment of the Festival of Redemption within the days of the week),

because the day of Shabbat and the day of Rosh Chodesh are still two separate days

(48 hours),

such that one must make a "Havdalah" between them,

even though both days are a continuation and one concept - the Festival of Redemption;

however, regarding Chukat and Balak - they become one actual portion,

with their aliyot,

to the extent that the fourth [aliyah] connects both portions.

And one can explain the difference:

When it comes to days of the world - they remain two separate days;

however, when it comes to two portions in the Torah - it has the power to become one actual thing.

And since the Torah was only given to those who ate the manna,

because they had no confusions,

consequently they can study Torah with tranquility - thus "He declares His words to Jacob, His statutes and judgments to Israel",

and the Almighty Himself fulfills what He demands of Jews, that they should study Torah and fulfill His commandments with tranquility - through the fact that He gives them all their needs,

children, life, and ample sustenance, and in all of them with joy,

from His full, open, holy, and broad hand.

This is like it will be "on the day that is entirely Shabbat and tranquility for eternal life" in the seventh millennium,

and even earlier - "at that time" in the sixth millennium - that "there will be neither famine nor war, etc., for the good will be abundantly bestowed and all delights will be as common as dust,

and the entire occupation of the world will be solely to know G-d,

and therefore Israel will be great sages, etc., and will comprehend knowledge of their Creator according to the capacity of man,

as it is said, 'For the earth shall be filled with knowledge of G-d as the waters cover the sea'"

(which "as the waters cover the sea" is even more than "according to the capacity of man").

And something similar to this also exists in the final days of the exile

(in the sixth millennium)

and especially when the establishment of the 12th of Tammuz falls on the day of Shabbat,

- which is similar to the day that is entirely Shabbat and tranquility for eternal life - all the more so from the fact that at the end of the Egyptian exile in the "nakedness of the land" there was "and for all the children of Israel there was light in their dwellings",

how much more so in the final days of the exile in a land of kindness,

one has tranquility in all matters.

And immediately afterwards comes the redemption and the building of the Third Holy Temple,

when there will be the perfection of tranquility - "to cause His Presence to dwell in our land",

as explained in the commentaries that this refers to the Third Holy Temple which will not be destroyed,

unlike the First Temple and Second Temple which were destroyed,

In the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach,

and speedily in our very days.

In a farbrengen of Shabbat

(and in particular - a special Shabbat,

the 12th of Tammuz)

it is also customary to dwell on a matter in Rashi on our portion,

an explanation in a statement of Rashi,

or why Rashi does not explain a matter that he seemingly should have explained;

a matter in Pirkei Avot - during the summer Shabbatot when we study Pirkei Avot,

as is known that many discourses of our Nesiim during the summer Shabbatot begin with a Mishnah from the chapter of that Shabbat;

a matter in the notes of my father on the Zohar of our portion;

and recently - a matter in the daily study of the Rambam's book.

Based on the proposal, one himself proposed several matters in Rashi that require explanation. We will dwell on two matters.

On the verse "Hor HaHar" Rashi explains:

"A mountain on top of a mountain, like a small apple on top of a large apple,

and even though the cloud went before them and leveled the mountains, three remained among them,

Mount Sinai for the Torah, Mount Nevo for the burial of Moses, and Hor HaHar for the burial of Aaron."

It was asked:

Regarding Mount Sinai, it already states earlier in the Chumash of Shemot - so why did Rashi not dwell there on the question of why Mount Sinai was not leveled by the cloud? One cannot say that Rashi in the Chumash of Shemot relies on his commentary in Parshat Chukat,

three Chumashim later!

This was already discussed once - in the year 5737,

as written and printed in the notes - but the explanation that appears in that note is not sustainable,

not only is it not a sufficient explanation,

but it does not even hold up initially.

In the list it states,

that Mount Sinai is a small mountain

("lowest of all mountains" - in the language of our Sages of blessed memory],

all the more so not like "Mount Hor"

(a mountain upon a mountain),

consequently it is not such a great difficulty that it was leveled;

but when it speaks about "Mount Hor",

"a mountain upon a mountain" - specifically there a great difficulty arises,

how did the Jews pass through there. Therefore Rashi must explain there,

"Although the cloud went before them and leveled the mountains" "Mount Hor" remained standing for the burial of Aaron. And since he already writes there about "Mount Hor",

he also brings [the explanation] about Mount Sinai.

In truth, this is initially not a resolution at all:

Does a small difficulty

(because Mount Sinai is a small mountain)

not require a resolution?!

A small difficulty - requires at least a small resolution!

And especially when it concerns a five-year-old studying Scripture,

who knows no tricks:

When there is a difficulty - it makes no difference to him whether this is a small difficulty due to a small mountain or a great difficulty due to a great mountain - in any case this is a difficulty according to the simple meaning which requires an explanation according to the simple meaning!

And it is astonishing that since this was discussed in the year 5737, ten sparse years have passed,

and nevertheless no one stopped to consider this!

If so, the explanation in the list stands - it is:

a) One must know whether something is missing there,

b) Perhaps it was said for sharpening [the mind],

c) Even if not - it could be that when one delves into it, one sees that this is not a resolution.

As the Rambam writes in a letter to someone who raised an objection against a judge regarding what he writes in his book,

that he

(the Rambam)

has no complaint against him,

and on the contrary - "it is fitting to search my words and examine after me,

and let not the reader of my composition say, 'Who is the man who comes after the king?' but rather I have permitted him, and let him say, 'Let the king come,'

and you have done good and great with me etc. and whoever finds something and informs me,

it will be considered a favor etc.";

only in this matter

(about which that person raised an objection)

- the Rambam explains that this is not an error.

Therefore it is mentioned again,

that if one cannot effect that there not be "ears that do not hear",

one should at least not let pass a matter that does not hold and one should ask about it.

And regarding the list from the year 5737 - one should correct it if one has the opportunity. In any case - since it is already printed in a book that lies on the shelf among other books - one should learn from it at least from now onward,

that one should not write a matter that does not hold,

but rather one should ask about it etc.

Another matter in Rashi on which attention was drawn:

On the verse "And all the congregation saw that Aaron had died" Rashi explains the meaning of the word "that":

"According to the Midrash that the clouds of glory departed,

and as Rabbi Abahu said, Rabbi Abahu said: Do not read 'vayiru' but rather 'vayiyaru' and upon this language the language

[of the Targum] 'd'ha' applies,

because it provides a reason for what precedes it,

why 'vayiru'? Because Aaron had died."

The well-known question was asked:

Why does Rashi specifically bring the statement in the name of its speaker? It is indeed true that it is a great matter to say a statement in the name of its speaker,

because "whoever says a statement in the name of its speaker brings redemption to the world" - but Rashi's purpose is not to bring redemption to the world,

rather "I have come only for the simple meaning of the verse",

so when Rashi brings a statement in the name of its speaker,

one must say that this contributes something to the simple meaning of the verse.

Also:

Why does Rashi write the name of the speaker twice:

""as Rabbi Abahu said, Rabbi Abahu said"?!

And as will be explained below.

In the present chapter

(Chapter Five)

the Mishnah says:

"Whoever possesses these three things is of the disciples of Abraham our father, and [whoever possesses] three other things is of the disciples of the wicked Balaam

[about which it speaks in our portion],

the disciples of Abraham our father [have] a good eye, a lowly spirit, and a humble soul,

the disciples of the wicked Balaam [have] an evil eye, a haughty spirit, and a broad soul,

what is the difference between the disciples of Abraham our father and the disciples of the wicked Balaam? The disciples of Abraham our father eat in this world and inherit the World to Come, as it is said, etc.,

but the disciples of the wicked Balaam inherit Gehinnom and descend to the pit of destruction, as it is said, 'But You, O God, will bring them down to the pit of destruction; men of blood and deceit shall not live out half their days; but I will trust in You.'"

One must understand:

A) Why is the Mishnah so lengthy and brings proofs from verses for everything — unlike the earlier Mishnah "Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving the creatures and drawing them near to the Torah,"

where there is no lengthiness and it does not bring proofs from verses?!

B) Why does the Mishnah bring the end of the verse "and I will trust in You" — which seemingly is not relevant to what is stated in the Mishnah?

And as will be explained below.

In the notes of [my] father on the Zohar of our portion, he focuses on the story in the Zohar about Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi Yehudah who met a child,

and "Rabbi Yehudah's hands were soiled, and he washed his hands and recited the blessing before washing."

And [my] father explains "the matter of what Rabbi Yehudah's hands were soiled and he recited the blessing before washing, that he did not mind the filth,

but regarding Rabbi Yitzchak this is not stated,

it is because Rabbi Yitzchak, who is of the aspect of Gevurah

["as his name Yitzchak, which is after Yitzchak the first, of the aspect of Gevurah"]

the left hand,

behold, from the left hand when it extends downward

[which is the matter of a hand — that extends downward]

there can be great nourishment for the Other Side, as from Yitzchak came Esau, etc.,

therefore by Rabbi Yitzchak his hands were not soiled,

or he recited the blessing after washing,

but Rabbi Yehudah, who is Chessed

[as [my] father brings earlier — the sources in Kabbalah]

the right hand,

behold, from the right hand even when it extends downward there is not so much nourishment for the Other Side,

for it is in the manner that from Abraham came Ishmael, who is not a hard kelipah like Esau

[whose matter is bloodshed — "by your sword you shall live,"

but not so Ishmael] etc.,

the filth of the right hand, Chessed, can be elevated,

as Ishmael was elevated when he repented, etc.,

this is that Rabbi Yehudah...

did not mind the filth and recited the blessing before washing."

One must understand:

In the note it is further explained why Rabbi Yehudah could have soiled hands,

for from Chessed there is not such nourishment. But this is not an explanation of why Rabbi Yehudah needed to "be particular" to have soiled hands?!

It is true that from the right hand there is not such nourishment for the Other Side,

but there is still nourishment — that Ishmael came from him,

and as is explained here in the continuation of the Zohar itself the great severity of the matter of washing soiled hands. An explanation is required accordingly,

why specifically by Rabbi Yehudah were the hands soiled?!

Also one must understand the lesson from this in the service of man.

Which [my] father does not explain, relying that one will understand it on his own. And as will be explained below.

In the present lesson of Rambam, Laws of Maaser, the Rambam writes:

"One who purchases produce from one who is not trustworthy regarding tithes and forgot to tithe them and Shabbat or a Festival entered when he cannot tithe,

behold, he asks him,

and if he says to him they are tithed, he may eat on his word on Shabbat,

and similarly if one who is not trustworthy says to him they are tithed, he may eat on his word on that Shabbat,

and even if he had other prepared produce of that same species — because the awe of Shabbat is upon the amei haaretz and he does not commit a transgression on it."

And "even though he eats on his word on Shabbat, behold, he shall not eat from that produce after Shabbat until he tithes demai on all of it, on what he ate on Shabbat and on what remains,

for they were lenient and believed him only for the need of that Shabbat."

[And to note:

The reason that the Rambam brings ("because the awe of Shabbat is upon the amei haaretz") is according to the opinion of Rabbi Beivai in the name of Rabbi Chanina in the Yerushalmi. But there he adds " (the awe of Shabbat is upon him) and he says 'I will tithe,'"

"and he is afraid to lie."

But the Rambam explains " (because the awe of Shabbat is upon the amei haaretz) and he does not commit a transgression on it."

What the difference is from one extreme to the other:

According to the Yerushalmi, the awe of Shabbat applies only regarding the detail of "speaking truth,"

for speaking truth and falsehood is a specific law in the Torah;

whereas according to the Rambam, the awe of Shabbat applies regarding all transgressions - "he does not commit a transgression" simply

(not only regarding speaking falsehood)].

In the words of the Rambam - explanation is needed:

What is the rationale in this that "they did not leniently trust him except for the need of that Shabbat." From whichever angle:

Since "the awe of Shabbat is upon the amei haaretz," therefore "if one who is not trustworthy said to him that they are tithed, he may eat on his word on that Shabbat" ab initio

(without any concerns),

"and even if he had other prepared fruits of that same species" - why can he not eat "from those fruits"

(regarding which the am haaretz was trustworthy on Shabbat)

at the conclusion of Shabbat

(until he tithes demai)?

Further:

The Rambam writes that "he shall not eat from those fruits at the conclusion of Shabbat until he tithes demai on all, on what he ate on Shabbat and on what remains." So from whichever angle:

If the am haaretz was trustworthy on Shabbat and therefore one may eat from the fruits ab initio without taking demai - why must one at the conclusion of Shabbat take demai on the fruits he ate on Shabbat:

And if one is obligated in demai on the fruits he ate on Shabbat - how could one have eaten them then without taking demai?

Further:

From that which the Rambam writes that "he shall not eat from those fruits at the conclusion of Shabbat until he tithes demai on all, on what he ate on Shabbat and on what remains" it implies,

that if nothing remains from the fruits that were eaten on Shabbat,

one need not take any demai on the fruits,

and also if he does not wish to eat from those fruits - he also need not take from them any demai

(because of that which he ate from them on Shabbat).

That is, that the trustworthiness of the am haaretz on Shabbat is to such an extent that the fruits are then permitted ab initio without any obligation of demai,

and the obligation of demai that comes at the conclusion of Shabbat

(on the fruits he ate on Shabbat and on what remains)

is not because the fruits he ate on Shabbat were obligated in demai,

rather then "he cannot tithe them" consequently one takes demai at the conclusion of Shabbat,

rather the obligation then is because he wishes to eat from the fruits then,

and at the conclusion of Shabbat he is not trustworthy,

even regarding the same fruits regarding which he was completely trustworthy on Shabbat,

and to such an extent,

that if he wishes to eat from them at the conclusion of Shabbat he must take demai also on that which he ate on Shabbat,

even though then the fruits were permitted ab initio!

One must have an explanation why on Shabbat he is completely trustworthy regarding the fruits to such an extent that they are ab initio not obligated in tithes

(as is proven from this that if nothing remains from them,

one need not give any tithes),

but at the conclusion of Shabbat he is not trustworthy regarding the same fruits,

and to such an extent that he must then give tithes also on the fruits he ate on Shabbat?!

And as will be explained further.

Here it was spoken about the establishment of Chabad houses in every place - was edited by the Rebbe shlita and was published separately.

In the middle of the matter. When it was spoken about the service in a manner of permanence and settlement,

a permanent dwelling,

in a constant and eternal manner - he brought an example of this in the service of man from the service of repentance:

As the Rambam writes in the Laws of Repentance:

"And what is repentance? It is that the sinner abandon his sin and remove it from his thought and resolve in his heart not to do it again..

and the Knower of mysteries testify concerning him that he will not return to this sin forever."

That is, that repentance must be in a permanent and eternal manner - not only regarding the past,

rather "that he not do it again,"

"that he not return to this sin forever."

Incidentally:

In this one must understand

(as was discussed once):

The law is indeed that when someone

(who was disqualified for testimony because of a specific sin)

does repentance, his testimony is accepted,

without knowing whether "he will not return to this sin forever" or not.

And on the contrary:

The Gemara says that there is a phenomenon of "a person committed a transgression and repeated it etc., it becomes permitted to him."

And according to the words of the Rambam that the definition of repentance is that "he will not return to this sin forever" - how can one say "a person committed a transgression and repeated it"?

And the main point - it is a logical argument, why do I need a verse:

One sees in practice that there is a phenomenon that someone commits a transgression and afterwards does true repentance and cries it out etc.,

and nevertheless he can afterwards stumble again in the same transgression!

And as we spoke about this explanation,

that this is not a contradiction to the words of the Rambam,

because it concerns two separate matters.

And here is the place to elaborate on this.

After concluding the matter regarding the establishment of Chabad Houses, he concluded:

Here is also the place,

that those who provided liquor for various matters should now come forward to take the liquor and distribute a portion of the liquor here,

and the rest - for their matters,

in order to connect their matters with the farbrengen and the farbrengen with their matters,

and through a physical liquor - "drinking is great because it brings close" even non-Jews,

all the more so Jews,

all the more so Chassidim,

all the more so students of the Baal HaSimchah VeHaGeulah,

with the recitation of "L'Chaim U'Livrachah" or "L'Chaim Tovim U'Shalom",

each one according to his version and custom.

And all this should hasten even more the true and complete redemption through Moshiach Tzidkeinu,

and together with this - through the Holy One Blessed Be He,

as it is said "My redeemed ones of Hashem who redeemed them from the hand of the oppressor",

and in the manner of "Give thanks to Hashem for He is good, for His kindness endures forever".

[His Holiness the Rebbe Shlita gave a jug of liquor to:

The honorable R. A.Z. Shiy'.

The honorable R. A.Tz. Shiy' (for the farbrengen of the three rabbis Shlita).

The honorable R. Sh.N.Z. G. Shiy'. And he commanded them to announce about the time and place of their gathering.

Afterwards, His Holiness the Rebbe Shlita began to play the melody "And I will pour out for you a blessing"].

The explanation in Rashi:

When the five-year-old studying Mikra learns in the Book of Shemos about Mount Sinai - no question arises for him initially why the cloud did not level the mountain,

because he learned in Parshat Shemos,

that Mount Sinai is called "Mountain of G-d"

("because of the future"),

he understands that there is no place for the cloud to level the "Mountain of G-d"!

And so the question,

that Jews need to go around and around Mount Sinai - this is not a matter of deficiency to go around the "Mountain of G-d",

just as it is not a deficiency to go around the Temple Mount in order to ascend to the Holy Temple!

When it comes, however, to Parshat Chukas where it is written "Mount Hor"

(which is not the "Mountain of G-d")

here the question arises why the cloud did not level it. Rashi answers that it remained "for the burial of Aharon",

and similarly Mount Nevo

(where the same question arises)

- "for the burial of Moshe".

And since Rashi explains here that "Mount Hor" remained "for the burial of Aharon" and Mount Nevo "for the burial of Moshe" - he must also explain that Mount Sinai remained "for the Torah"

(even though without this there is also no question why the cloud did not level it because it is the "Mountain of G-d").

And the reason:

Until one learns this Rashi, one has a reason why the cloud did not level Mount Sinai because it is the "Mountain of G-d",

but this is not an explanation why the giving of the Torah had to be specifically on the mountain,

from the perspective of the Above and Moshe Rabbeinu - the giving of the Torah could have been on a plain,

just as it can be on a mountain,

without any deficiency at all.

When the five-year-old learns here, however, that "Mount Hor" remained standing "for the burial of Aharon" and Mount Nevo "for the burial of Moshe" - a reason also comes for why the giving of the Torah should be specifically on a mountain

(not on a plain)

because of the honor of the Torah,

just as because of the honor of Aharon and the honor of Moshe their burial must be on a mountain. And therefore Rashi explains that indeed - just as Mount Hor and Mount Nevo remained standing for the honor of Aharon and Moshe,

so Mount Sinai remained standing "for the Torah". And based on this one will also understand why Rashi changes from the language of the Midrash "Mount Sinai for the Shechinah",

and writes "Mount Sinai for the Torah".

The explanation why Rashi brings the interpretation "Do not read 'and they saw' but rather 'and they feared'" in the name of its author - Rabbi Abahu:

A sharp student can ask that the interpretation "Do not read 'and they saw' but rather 'and they feared'" is seemingly not according to the plain meaning,

because according to the plain meaning "and they saw" means "and they saw" and not "and they feared".

Therefore Rashi brings this interpretation in the name of Rabbi Abahu,

because when the sharp student will inquire of his teacher in what Rabbi Abahu was distinguished,

he will understand that this is an interpretation according to the plain meaning:

There is no Gemara

(in tractate Avodah Zarah at its beginning)

it is told,

that "Rav Avohu praised Rabbi Safra to the heretics that he is a great man,

they left him a tax exemption for thirteen years." One day they asked him an interpretation of a verse and he did not know,

they distressed him. "Rabbi Avohu came and found them, said to them: Why did you distress him?

They said to him: Did you not tell us that he is a great man and he does not know to tell us the interpretation of this verse?

He said to them: Did I say to you regarding Tannaitic teachings?

Did I say to you regarding Scriptures?

They said to him: What is the difference between you who know?

He said to them: We who forget, we impose upon ourselves and we examine; they do not examine."

One sees from this,

that Rabbi Avohu excelled in the study of Scripture according to the plain meaning,

to such an extent that he could interpret the meanings of the verses also for the heretics,

and they accepted it.

And based on this, the five-year-old understands,

that since Rabbi Avohu says the interpretation "Do not read 'and they saw' but rather 'and they feared',"

this is an interpretation of Scripture according to the plain meaning.

Another story in the Gemara

(in tractate Sotah)

regarding Rabbi Avohu:

"Rabbi Avohu and Rabbi Chiya bar Abba arrived at a certain place,

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba expounded halachic traditions and Rabbi Avohu expounded Aggadah,

everyone left Rabbi Chiya bar Abba and came before Rabbi Avohu"

[and it can be said the reason,

because Aggadah draws a person's heart].

One sees from this that Rabbi Avohu excelled in the study of Aggadah. This gives further understanding of Rabbi Avohu's interpretation "Do not read 'and they saw' but rather 'and they feared'" which is an interpretation according to the way of Aggadah,

as is obvious and simple,

that Aggadah

(relative to halachic tradition,

halachah)

is closer to the plain meaning.

And based on this, it is understood why Rashi brings here the interpretation in the name of "the one who said it."

And that which Rashi writes "Rabbi Avohu" twice is only in our editions,

but in the first edition and in several manuscripts,

it stands correctly only once "Rabbi Avohu."

And it requires examination how an error subsequently entered through a student,

a copyist or a printer,

and they added a second time the words "Rabbi Avohu."

From this one has a general lesson regarding many places that when there is a difficulty in Rashi,

one must first of all check in the first editions and manuscripts; perhaps an error has entered.

The explanation in that which by Rabbi Yehudah there were specifically soiled hands - it can be said,

that this is in the manner that David said "My hands are soiled etc. in order to purify a woman for her husband." And in spiritual service - to purify the Congregation of Israel for the Holy One, blessed be He.

(For which one needs to reach a descent,

soiled hands).

And it is sweetened in this that King David is primarily the Sefirah of Malchut

(Congregation of Israel),

as explained at length in the commandment of appointing a king in the Tzemach Tzedek.

And even though in the Zohar it is not stated regarding Rabbi Yehudah

(that this is in order to purify a woman for her husband and the like),

and it only states that by him there were soiled hands without specification - we learn the hidden from the explicit by King David,

that also by Rabbi Yehudah there were soiled hands in order to purify a woman for her husband,

Either according to its simple meaning

(as it was by King David),

or - since it speaks in the Zohar

(the inner dimension of the Torah)

- one can say that it speaks only about purifying a woman for her husband in spiritual service - to purify the Congregation of Israel for the Holy One, blessed be He.

And there is to elaborate on this.

The explanation in Pirkei Avot:

The difference between the Mishnah "Be of the students of Aharon" and the Mishnah in this chapter regarding "the students of Avraham Avinu" is:

The qualities of the students of Aharon - "loves peace and pursues peace, loves the creatures and draws them near to Torah" - are simple matters of practical action. Therefore, there one does not need any length with proofs from verses,

because it speaks about simple matters of practical action. On the contrary:

There one needs an explanation why the Mishnah in Avot,

whose subject is "matters of piety,"

needs to say it at all,

what is the "matters of piety" in this!

All the more so that when the Mishnah says it, it does not need to stand with length and with proofs,

because it is simple matters,

and one thing is a natural result of the other:

"loves peace" brings "pursues peace",

"loves peace and pursues peace" brings "loves the creatures etc."

However, the qualities of the disciples of Abraham our father — "a good eye, a humble spirit, and a lowly soul"

(and the opposite — in the disciples of Balaam the wicked)

— are traits that have not yet descended into thought, speech, and action.

(Not only not into action,

but even not into speech and even not into thought),

As is proven from the Mishnah itself:

If the traits had expressed themselves in thought, speech, and action, what would be the novel point?

Rather, the novelty of the Mishnah is

that it speaks about the qualities and traits of a person

("a good eye, a humble spirit, and a lowly soul",

and the opposite in the disciples of Balaam the wicked)

which have not yet expressed themselves in actuality in thought, speech, and action.

Consequently, one could ponder here,

"What is all this about?"

Who cares if he has such evil traits of Balaam the wicked

("an evil eye, a haughty spirit, and a broad soul")

when this does not express itself in actuality in his thought, speech, and action,

or what is the achievement if he has the good traits of Abraham our father

("a good eye, a humble spirit, and a lowly soul")

when this does not express itself in actuality in thought, speech, and action?

The Mishnah innovates that it is explicitly relevant.

As the Rambam writes,

that "Do not say that repentance applies only to transgressions that involve action, etc.",

but also for "evil opinions"

(including — those that have not yet descended into thought, speech, and action).

And since it is a novelty,

therefore the Mishnah must elaborate on this.

And therefore the Mishnah continues — "What is the difference between the disciples of Abraham our father and the disciples of Balaam the wicked":

Since here we speak about traits

(which have not yet descended into thought, speech, and action)

— the question arises as above,

"What is the difference between the disciples of Abraham our father and the disciples of Balaam the wicked" — what is the practical difference between them,

when we speak only about the matter of traits

(which have not descended in actuality into thought, speech, and action)?

The Mishnah says,

that there is explicitly a practical difference — "The disciples of Abraham our father eat in this world and inherit the World to Come":

Because the traits are practically relevant

(even when they are still traits that have not descended into thought, speech, and action)

— therefore "they eat in this world and inherit the World to Come" in actuality.

And the novelty in this is even greater than "they eat in this world":

Granted, that which "they inherit the World to Come" — one can still explain,

that because he has good traits,

even if this has not come out in actuality in thought, speech, and action,

"they inherit the World to Come";

But when it speaks about "they eat in this world",

physical reward in this world — one could seemingly think, how is it fitting to give someone physical reward for the fact that he only has good traits but the traits have not come out in actuality in this physical world in thought, speech, and action?

And as the Rambam writes,

that physical promises

("they eat in this world")

are so that a person can study Torah and fulfill commandments in tranquility. But when it speaks about traits,

which do not come out into thought, speech, and action in actuality,

one could seemingly think that for this there is nothing to give him physical reward,

because he does nothing in actuality with his traits,

and from the aspect of "man sees with the eyes" one does not see

(in externality)

any practical difference in thought, speech, and action.

The Mishnah innovates,

that even for good traits alone

(which have not yet descended into thought, speech, and action in actuality)

he also receives the reward of "they eat in this world" in actuality and physically,

because the good traits are ultimately relevant to actuality. And since it is a novelty — the Mishnah brings upon this a proof from a verse.

And correspondingly on the non-good side — "The disciples of the wicked inherit Gehinnom and descend to the pit of destruction":

Even though it speaks only about evil traits

(which also have not come out into thought, speech, and action in actuality),

one receives for this a punishment in actuality.

And because of the novelty of the matter, he gives upon this the proof

(from the verse that David said regarding Achitophel and his companions)

— "And You, God, will bring them down to the pit of destruction; men of blood and deceit shall not live out half their days; and I will trust in You."

Balaam was a man of "deceit." In actual deed, he did not touch the Jews,

he only gave advice and a curse with the mouth - "Come, I will advise you what this people shall do."

That is, Balaam conducted himself with deceit:

Externally, he could claim that he had done nothing,

but in the inwardness of his heart

(attributes of the heart)

he wanted to harm the Jews and therefore gave advice with the mouth. To such an extent were his evil attributes,

that even though "they shall not live out half their days,"

which applies to Balaam

(as brought in the Gemara* )

- he was not affected by this and gave the advice.

The verse says that "men of deceit" are "men of schemes,"

because of their deceit, a matter of bloodshed in actual deed ultimately emerges,

consequently they are "men of bloodshed." As it was with Balaam,

that even though he only gave advice with the mouth

(and did nothing in actual deed)

- nevertheless, from this the plague subsequently emerged

(bloodshed)

in actuality,

therefore he is considered a man of bloodshed.

And therefore his punishment was - "and Balaam the son of Beor they slew with the sword."

As our Sages of blessed memory say: "He

(Balaam)

came upon Israel and exchanged their craft for their craft, that they are saved only by their mouth through prayer and supplication

[as it is written "the voice is the voice of Jacob and the hands are the hands of Esau"],

and he came and seized their craft to curse them with his mouth,

so they came upon him and exchanged their craft for the craft of the nations, who come with the sword, as it is said 'and by your sword you shall live.'"

One sees from this what emerges in actuality from evil attributes of the heart

("evil eye, haughty spirit, and broad soul")

even though initially they are only attributes that have not descended into actual deed,

they ultimately descend into actuality and are harmful - "men of bloodshed and deceit."

One might be frightened by this,

that Balaam is from "men of bloodshed and deceit" and actually harmed the Jews,

for "he knows the knowledge of the Most High" etc.;

Therefore the Mishnah concludes with the conclusion of the verse - "and I will trust in You,"

and from the side of the Most High

("in You")

no one has the mastery to harm another,

as explained in the Iggeret HaKodesh.

And there is much to elaborate on all this.

The explanation in the Rambam - is warned about in the Yerushalmi itself

(and it is remarkable that the commentators who discuss this explanation in the Rambam,

do not reference it):

After the Yerushalmi states the reason "because the fear of Shabbat is upon him"

(therefore one may eat from the fruits on Shabbat),

the Yerushalmi asks

(the question that was asked on the Rambam):

"And if the fear of Shabbat is upon him, have we not taught: 'If it grew dark on the eve of Shabbat, he may not eat until he has tithed'

(why may he not eat also on Motzaei Shabbat if we rely on him that he speaks the truth and has tithed them)? And it answers:

'Because there is one upon whom the fear of Shabbat is not,'

'meaning the Sages were stringent that he should not eat after Shabbat because there is one upon whom the fear of Shabbat is not and he lies,

but on Shabbat itself they did not decree because of the one, and they follow the majority,'

and the reason for this (why on Shabbat itself we are not concerned for the minority) - because of the honor of Shabbat (the second reason brought in the Yerushalmi for why he is believed on Shabbat),

as the Rosh explains:

"They did not want to rely on the fear of Shabbat except on the day of Shabbat, because there is one upon whom the fear of Shabbat is not,

and therefore they made this reason a support with the honor of Shabbat."

And it can be said that this is also the explanation in the words of the Rambam "they did not leniently believe him except for the need of that Shabbat"

(therefore one may not eat on Motzaei Shabbat until he has tithed Demai):

The primary reason why he is believed on Shabbat

(according to the Rambam)

is "because the fear of Shabbat is upon the Am Haaretz and he does not transgress a transgression on it."

And the reason why we are not concerned for the minority

(one upon whom the fear of Shabbat is not)

is because of the honor of Shabbat. And therefore the Rambam writes that "even though he eats on his word on Shabbat, he shall not eat from those fruits on Motzaei Shabbat until he has tithed Demai etc. for they did not leniently believe him except for the need of that Shabbat,"

because then there is also the reason of the honor of Shabbat, consequently we are not concerned for the one upon whom the fear of Shabbat is not,

and therefore one may then eat the fruits ab initio

(without any concern at all).

But on Motzaei Shabbat, when we no longer have the reason of the honor of Shabbat,

we are concerned for the minority.

And based on this, one will also understand why "he may not eat from those fruits at the conclusion of Shabbat until he tithes demai on everything, on what he ate on Shabbat and on what remains"

(for ostensibly one is not obligated to tithe on what one ate on Shabbat,

and to such an extent,

that if nothing remains from it or if one does not wish to eat from it at the conclusion of Shabbat,

one need not give tithes at the conclusion of Shabbat on what one ate on Shabbat,

as stated above):

The fruits that one ate on Shabbat were eaten permissibly ab initio, and there was no obligation of tithing upon them,

because of the awe of Shabbat upon him and because of the honor of Shabbat, that we do not suspect someone who does not have the awe of Shabbat upon him.

But since at the conclusion of Shabbat it becomes revealed that in truth there is a concern because of one who does not have the awe of Shabbat upon him,

only on Shabbat itself we do not suspect this because of the honor of Shabbat — therefore,

at the time that one obligates him in demai in order to be able to eat from the fruits at the conclusion of Shabbat,

one also obligates him "that he shall tithe demai on everything, on what he ate on Shabbat and on what remains." And one can say a parallel to this matter — from "the rolling over of an oath,"

an obligation of an oath regarding a claim that in itself has no obligation of an oath upon it,

but incidentally to an oath regarding a claim for which one became obligated, one rolls over and obligates in an oath also regarding that claim.

And may it be His will that from this study of the laws of tithing,

for "whoever engages in the Torah of the burnt-offering, it is as if he has offered a burnt-offering,"

as it is stated, "The Holy One, blessed be He, said

(to Ezekiel)...

'Go, say to them: Let them engage in reading the form of the Temple in the Torah, and in reward for its reading...

I consider it for them as if they are engaged in the building of the Temple,'"

that is, that through this study "the building of My House" is not "nullified" — may this bring the time when one will fulfill the laws of tithing in actual practice according to Torah law,

in the true and complete redemption

[unlike now,

according to the opinion of the Rambam,

it is only rabbinical in the Land of Israel. And outside the Land — it does not exist at all].

And here is the place to arouse:

If Mashiach will, Heaven forbid, not come before the three weeks,

beginning from the seventeenth of Tammuz — one should already begin making the preparations and publicizing to increase during the three weeks in the study of Torah,

which is "that gladdens the heart,"

and especially — in that part of the Torah that speaks about the Holy Temple,

for through this study of the form of the Temple "the building of My House" is not "nullified"

(as stated above),

and this

(the study that causes that "the building of My House" is not nullified)

can be even on Shabbat,

even at night, etc. And

And may it be His will that the very resolution in this matter should already bring in actual practice the third Holy Temple,

which can descend on Shabbat and at night, and may it be that "these days will be turned into joy and gladness and good festivals"

(as the Rambam concludes the Laws of Fasts),

for which the preparation for this is through that which one increases in our deeds and our service in general,

and out of love of Israel and unity of Israel — "and love truth and peace,"

and one can say that therefore the Rambam concludes the Laws of Fasts with the words "and love truth and peace,"

for peace

(love of Israel and unity of Israel)

and in a truthful manner,

which spans from one extreme to the other,

"I am the first and I am the last, and besides Me there is no God" — one brings about that "these days will be turned into joy and gladness and good festivals."

And there will be fulfilled "to dwell in glory in our land,"

in the building of the third Holy Temple,

in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach,

after the tidings of the redemption through "Pinchas, he is Elijah,"

the herald of the redemption,

"the voice of the herald heralds and says."

And as stated,

one hastens this even more quickly through increasing in our deeds and our service in general,

and especially — standing on the twelfth of Tammuz — in fulfilling the mission of the master of joy and redemption,

for "a person's agent is like himself" 196195.

And through this there is revealed the "Mashiach" himself,

the master of joy and redemption as a soul in a body in the resurrection of the dead,

for it will be "awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust" and he among them,

And speedily in our days, literally.

In order to further increase in carrying out the above resolutions in actual practice in connection with the festival of redemption,

including the establishment of Chabad Houses — one will connect this with a physical matter,

"great is a drink that brings close":

After Havdalah one can enter the "secretariat" and there take a beverage from the farbrengen,

And with this one should hold a farbrengen in every place as a beginning to carry out the good resolutions in actual practice,

And one should endeavor that in the farbrengen all types of Jews should participate,

who have all been redeemed in the redemption of the Baal HaGeulah on the 12th of Tammuz — from "those who love our holy Torah,"

to those who are "called by the name Israel,"

like the chelbenah.

And one also sprinkles upon them — "And I will sprinkle upon you pure water and you will be purified,"

connected to our parshah — the beginning of Parshas Chukas where it speaks about purification from impurity of the dead;

and also with the end of Parshas Balak,

where it speaks of an undesirable incident,

connected to the level of chelbenah.

Until one comes to Parshas Pinchas,

"Pinchas is Eliyahu,"

the herald of the true and complete redemption through our righteous Moshiach,

and everyone goes to Eretz Yisrael,

"Hashem your God will expand your border,"

in the true and complete redemption,

and with joy and a good heart.

Afterwards he said:

Those who need to make a final blessing,

will certainly make a final blessing.

----------