English translation — שיחת ש"פ מטו"מ, מבה"ח מנחם אב ה'תשמ"ו.

On Shabbat Mevarchim HaChodesh there are two matters:

a) The general matter of every Shabbat Mevarchim,

and b) the particular matter of each Shabbat Mevarchim,

and in our case –

Shabbat Mevarchim HaChodesh Menachem-Av.

And in this particular itself there is a) the general and common point of Shabbat Mevarchim Menachem-Av in every year,

and b) the particular within the particular –

the unique and specific matter of Shabbat Mevarchim Menachem-Av according to the specific determination of each year. And in general the difference –

whether this is in a simple year or in a leap year

(as in this year).

And in more detail –

the difference from the aspect of the weekly Torah portion:

Shabbat Mevarchim Av cannot occur after Parshat Massei,

but in this itself there are differences:

it can be on Shabbat Parshat Pinchas,

on Shabbat Parshat Matot,

on Shabbat Parshat Massei, or

(as in this year) –

on Shabbat Parshat Matot and Massei.

And in a more general way:

Shabbat Mevarchim itself is a detail of Shabbat in general,

and Shabbat is a detail of days in general,

and all days are details of the general concept of time,

which was created by the Holy One, blessed be He,

as Chassidus brings from the Maggid

[even though this is a foundational principle also before the Maggid²),

that time is a created thing.

It follows,

that every time begins from a general point,

and then it divides into details and details of details and the particular within the particular within the particular etc.³:

First of all there is the very first general principle –

the general concept of time which was created by the Holy One, blessed be He,

one point of time which includes within itself all the details of times

(day and night, Shabbat,

Shabbat Mevarchim etc.),

but together with this it is a general point which is higher and comes before the division of time into details,

before the division between day and night and between weekdays and the day of Shabbat etc.

Which is like the primordial thought only which includes all the details of the order of evolution in one glance.⁴

Afterwards comes the division of time into day and night. And afterwards into specific twenty-four hour periods,

and each day does its work,⁵

and afterwards in this itself - a division between weekdays and the day of Shabbat which has an added holiness that is "sanctified and established."⁶

Afterwards in Shabbat itself there is a division between an ordinary Shabbat

(most Shabbatot)

and Shabbat Mevarchim HaChodesh

(the minority of Shabbatot).

And in Shabbat Mevarchim HaChodesh itself, each Shabbat Mevarchim has its unique matter - which month it blesses and in which time it occurs. And in our case –

Shabbat Mevarchim Menachem-Av which occurs in the time of the year of "between the straits."

And in this itself –

there is a difference from year to year,

and in the determination of this year –

on Shabbat Parshat Matot and Massei.

And just as this is in time,

so too is this in place:

After the coming into being of the general concept of place,

afterwards there is a division into particular places,

each place having its unique service. And in general –

the difference between the Land of Israel and outside the Land. And in particular –

each one is included in the other:

There is the "Land of Israel" that is outside the Land,

as per the saying of the Tzemach Tzedek⁷ "make here a Land of Israel."

That is, that there are situations and circumstances when a Jew is required to have a service of a "Land of Israel" type,

and situations and circumstances like an "outside the Land" type.

Based on this it is understood,

that every time

(and place)

has within itself, in addition to its particular matter,

also the general matter and common point which makes it similar to other times. As is known that in Torah and holiness there is the concept of inclusion,

every matter is included in other matters. For example in our case:

In addition to that which Shabbat Mevarchim Menachem-Av of Parshat Matot and Massei has its particular matter and service,

it also includes within itself the general matter of Shabbat Mevarchim in general,

and even more generally –

Shabbat in general,

until the one and general point of time which was created by the Holy One, blessed be He, which is higher, before all the details of the division of time,

and includes

(in a point and one glance)

all times,

including this Shabbat Mevarchim Menachem-Av,

which derives from that one point and general principle of the general concept of time which was created by the Holy One, blessed be He, at the beginning of creation.

And according to the well-known teaching of the Baal Shem Tov⁸ that from every thing one must derive a lesson in the service of Hashem –

it is understood that in addition to the lesson and unique service of this particular time and place and situation and circumstance,

one must also learn a lesson from that which the time

(particular)

derives from and is a part of the general concept of time which was created by the Holy One, blessed be He.

First of all, one must extract the particular lesson from each time and place specifically. And in our matter –

standing in the time of "between the straits",

the time has its specific service,

both in doing good

(obligation) –

an increase in Torah and mitzvos in order to nullify the "because of our sins we were exiled from our land"⁹,

and in turning from evil

(negation),

the matters from which one must refrain from doing in these days.

[And in this itself comes the lesson of the particular within the particular –

that in this year the Shabbos of Mattos and Masei,

as follows from section 20 onward].

And the lesson in this time must descend into actual deed. For the deed is the main thing¹⁰ in general,

and particularly as it stands emphasized in the Three Weeks,

for the main pain of exile is regarding actual deed in this physical world,

as we see it regarding the difference in the offering of sacrifices

[“service”,

one of the three pillars upon which the world stands¹¹,

and in general –

it includes the entirety of the matter of service],

that because of the destruction of the Holy Temple one cannot offer physical sacrifices in actual deed and the like,

as opposed to spiritual service

(relative to the physicality of the Holy Temple)

one has this matter also now through “and we will render [for] bulls [the utterance of] our lips”¹².

And correspondingly, every place has its specific service –

the service in Eretz Yisrael and the service in the diaspora. And in our matter –

in the Three Weeks –

the descent of the exile was both in the diaspora and in Eretz Yisrael,

as is understood and simple from the fact that in Eretz Yisrael one says in prayer “because of our sins we were exiled from our land”,

even though after the destruction many of the children of Israel remained in Eretz Yisrael –

because through the destruction there was a descent in the entire world

(and in the entire order of the chain of descent)

including –

Eretz Yisrael,

and relative to the level of Eretz Yisrael at the time of the Temple,

the state of Eretz Yisrael at the time of the exile is a state of “we were exiled”,

until that several mitzvos dependent on the land were then nullified. After the destruction it could be that Jews remained there each man under his vine and under his fig tree¹³,

but it is not the same “vine and fig tree” and land in general as at the time of the Temple.

So too is it understood regarding the “Eretz Yisrael” that is in the diaspora,

that there too there is a descent in the Three Weeks,

which calls forth an increase in the service of Hashem in order to nullify the “because of our sins we were exiled from our land”.

And so it is understood regarding all times of the year and every situation and circumstance

[which is reflected in a Jew),

that in every particular time and situation and circumstance one must perform the specific service appropriate to that time and circumstance,

even though all times derive from one point and one principle.

And even though the main thing is the general point in all matters of service –

“I was created to serve my Maker”¹⁴,

by virtue of which there is no difference which particular service he performs,

and in the language of the Likkutei Torah¹⁵:

“If he were commanded to chop wood” he would do it with the same acceptance of the yoke –

it would seem there is no difference between the particular services in every particular time and situation and circumstance,

for what is it considered relative to this general matter.

For example, with a mortal king:

What is the difference considered between the ministers who enter the innermost chamber and the servants and the one who is in a remote corner of his kingdom –

relative to the general point that each one of them fulfills the will of the king,

which is incomparably higher than the particular differences in the manner of fulfilling the king’s will.

All the more so with the true King,

the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He,

the general point in all matters of service

(that through this one fulfills the will of Hashem)

is completely incomparable to the particular manner in the fulfillment of the will.

Nevertheless, we see that the Most High established the creation

[not only the world of Creation,

but the entire order of the chain of descent]

in a manner,

that there is there not only one overview in a general way,

but it descends into a division of particulars and particulars of particulars,

both in time and in place.

And this is in the Torah itself:

In addition to the general holiness that exists in all sixty myriads of letters of the Torah¹⁶ equally,

without any distinction whether this is the verse "And the sister of Lotan was Timna"¹⁷ or "I am Hashem your God"¹⁸

(as the Rambam writes¹⁹),

the Torah is arrayed in twenty-two letters which are arrayed in various combinations and form different words and sections and laws and stories,

each with its specific content that distinguishes it from the other matters that are in the Torah.

So too is this in the entirety of creation,

that in addition to the general aspect, the Most High divided it into many details and particulars of particulars.

Until in a manner that every detail in creation is not only a receiver but also an influencer²⁰

[as this is expressed in halachah,

that a pauper at the ultimate level of poverty (G-d forbid) is also obligated in the commandment of charity²¹,

because even if it appears that he has nothing to give,

the Torah says that he too has something to give,

and this is not dependent on his choice].

That is, that every thing in creation

(even the most lowly thing)

has within itself an aspect in which it is higher than all other matters and in that all of them need to come to it;

and together with this, every thing in creation

(even the most elevated thing)

is also a receiver,

and as our sages, of blessed memory, said²² "Who is wise? One who learns from every person",

not only "from a person",

but "from every person".

From this it is understood,

that although there is one general point and overview,

the Most High established that this should come down into a division of details and particulars of particulars,

and every detail,

every time and place and situation and condition has within itself its unique instruction and service, by virtue of which it is higher than all other details of creation,

and they need to receive this from it.

And on the contrary:

Specifically the division derives from the true simplicity,

as explained in Torat Chayim on Parshat Noach²³,

and at length in the discourses of the Rebbe

(the Rebbe Rashab)

section ²⁴.

Thus it is understood why in addition to the general point in all matters of service

(to serve my Master),

it must come down into particular service,

in every time and place and situation and condition according to its particular matter.

On the other hand:

Since every particular time

(and place)

derives from the one point of the entirety of the aspect of time that was created by the Holy One, blessed be He, at the beginning of creation

(before it was divided into details),

analogous to the single overview in the primordial thought specifically –

one must learn from every particular time also from the general aspect that is in time

(as the aforementioned teaching of the Baal Shem Tov that from every thing one must learn a lesson);

that is, that also the general point of time is drawn into every particular time throughout all times.

And as an example of how this is in the souls of Israel:

It is explained in Tanya²⁵ that the souls of Israel are divided into sixty myriads of general souls,

and afterwards "each root divides into sixty myriads of sparks, each spark being one soul, etc." And it is known²⁶ that most souls

(if not all)

in this generation

(unlike in the generation of the Exodus from Egypt)

are particular souls

[if someone were a general soul,

one would have to say about him "Blessed is the Knower of secrets"²⁷!),

and even if there are general souls,

they are individuals,

and the Torah speaks of the majority²⁸.

Nevertheless, it is said,

that the particular soul of one particular Jew has within itself from the most general soul,

as it stands in the root of his root,

and this affects him down to actual deed in his particular service.

Thus, as with all matters, there must be from this a lesson in the service of each and every one.

And since this pertains to all Jews,

it must be a lesson that is understood according to the simple meaning,

not according to allusion and homily and secret,

down to secrets of secrets,

which is not relevant to the understanding of a simple person,

but according to the simple meaning;

and within the simple meaning itself there are also levels:

a simple meaning that is understandable to a five-year-old studying Scripture,

and even younger than that

(to whom one also tells about matters that are in the Torah),

or the simple meaning of the great among the literalists,

for the greatest of the great. The lesson in this matter must be according to the simple meaning understood with ultimate simplicity for all Jews,

also for a simple person.

Why if one tells him an explanation according to the secrets of secrets or according to the simple interpretation that pertains to the great ones –

he will quickly become confused,

not necessarily because he does not have a good mind,

but because he is not accustomed to this,

consequently this is for him a very difficult matter. As the Gemara says²⁹ that "crushing labor"

(not mere labor,

which is from the term processing hides³⁰,

but "crushing labor")

means "that they would exchange men's work for women's and women's work for men's" –

"and this is difficult because they were not accustomed to it."

[As the matter (of lack of habit) is also expressed in halachah regarding the laws of Shabbat³¹,

that a person who fasts every day and eats on Shabbat, it is difficult for him because of the change of routine etc.

Furthermore:

Lack of habit also affects an ox,

as the law states³² that an ox that gored people who are dressed in weekday clothing two times,

it does not become a forewarned ox if it subsequently gores a person dressed in Shabbat and Yom Tov garments,

or any unusual garment,

because it is possible that the goring is due to lack of habit,

not because it is a goring ox.

And all the more so that this is the case regarding the animal soul,

and all the more so regarding a Jew].

Therefore the lesson from this must be understood in the most simple manner,

in a way that an utterly simple person need not exert himself over it.

So the lesson in simple terms is:

When a simple person hears that the Supreme One –

Who is above all matters,

as His name "Supreme One"³² –

has "lowered Himself" to create the concept of time in general, which includes the particular time of "the Three Weeks" in which the particular Jew finds himself in a particular place in a particular situation and state –

it is understood the magnitude of the strength and fortification that this gives in the particular service of this Jew during this time,

hearing that the particular time comes from the fact that the Supreme One Himself occupies Himself with creating time that includes this particular time!

As discussed many times –

according to what is explained in Torah Ohr³³ –

that a simple person does not know of any sefirot or order of descent,

he does not know of the entire category of sefirot,

not even of spirituality in general,

all the more so not of Divinity;

he only knows about "this here and that there",

that there is an existence of "this" and an existence of "that",

and an existence of a person who is told that sometimes there must be "this here and that there".

Consequently when he speaks about the Supreme One –

he does not mean any levels or sefirot about which he knows nothing at all,

but rather –

Essence and Being!

And in the well-known phrase –

"To Him and not to His attributes." And on the contrary:

One need not be clever with him as with one who knows of sefirot and the order of descent,

that "To Him and not to His attributes"!

A great person needs to be informed that in Sifri it states "To Him and not to His attributes." Where does it state in Sifri –

one does not know,

but in Chassidus³⁴ it states in the name of the Pardes³⁵ that this is found in Sifri;

However a simple person –

does not know at all of this Sifri,

all the more so not of Kabbalah and Chassidus. He knows simply from himself –

that there is the Supreme One,

which for him simply means Essence and Being,

because he knows and feels nothing else.

He knows and feels himself,

and then he believes with simple faith –

the simple faith that exists in every Jew,

faith from the term "and he was³⁶ a foster father to Hadassah"

(as explained in Tanya³⁷ that faith is "an expression of habit that a person accustoms himself"),

he constantly habituates himself and is thereby constantly connected –

that there is a Supreme One;

and more than this he does not know. Only when he contemplates intellectually –

he understands that there are other people around him,

but what does he feel –

that there is he, and

(by virtue of the simple faith that exists in every Jew he knows that)

there is the Supreme One, to distinguish.

He need not, however, say "to distinguish",

because the title "Supreme One" itself means that He is above him. And on the contrary:

When one says "to distinguish" it can mean for superiority or for inferiority,

when one says however "Supreme One" this itself means to distinguish for superiority.

And he also has simple faith that the Supreme One created the world,

"In the beginning, Hashem created the heavens and the earth,"

so that when a simple person says that this includes the creation of time and space,

he accepts it simply.

Among the investigators of Israel there is a question whether time is a created thing,

until there are true investigators of Israel,

religious,

who

(did not merit the books where it is stated that time is a created thing and)

hold that time is not a created thing ³⁸.

And likewise regarding space.

Because according to intellect one can argue about this. And on the contrary:

According to pure intellect one cannot comprehend an existence where there is no space and time,

consequently it follows according to intellect that space and time need not be created.

Chassidus brings ³⁹ that it is agreed upon by all investigators ⁴⁰ that above the ninth sphere there is no time or space at all. But this is not necessary according to intellect,

and on the contrary –

according to intellect it follows that time and space always existed. And the reason for this –

because intellect itself is bounded by time and space,

therefore intellect cannot comprehend beyond time and space,

intellect cannot conceive of an existence where there is no time and space. "Just as a blind person cannot perceive the color of an eye" ⁴¹,

since he has never seen it.

Likewise, intellect,

which is bounded by time and space,

cannot comprehend beyond time and space. Therefore it appears to the intellect that time and space are not created things. Or at least –

intellect can say that this is beyond its capacity,

it cannot prove it,

because it itself is bounded by time and space.

One cannot bring a proof that time is a created thing from the fact that the sun and moon are created –

because the sun and moon do not bring about the existence of time,

they only bring about changes in time

(day and night, etc.),

but not the essence of the existence of time. What connection does it have to say that the revolution of the sun in its sphere brings about the essence of the existence of time?!

All this was said regarding an investigator, etc.

But a simple person accepts simply when one tells him that time and space are created just like all other created things.

And they were created, first and foremost, as a single point and glance

(in the primordial thought of the Ein Sof, until)

through Essence and Being,

as mentioned above,

that a simple person knows only of Essence and Being.

It follows for him,

that Essence and Being occupied itself with creating the existence of time in a single glance,

which includes within itself and descends and enlivens the present moment,

in the Three Weeks,

in this place and situation and state!

Thus it is understandable the powers and vitality that this gives him in his service in this moment and in this place and situation and state,

in the service connected with the Three Weeks,

both in doing good and in turning from evil

(as above).

And may it be His will that one utilize this in the manner of "the axe on the wood" ⁴².

That is, to utilize the drawing down from Essence and Being,

which is incomparably higher than any matter of "the axe",

in actual deed in this moment and in this place and situation and state,

in the manner of "the axe on the wood"

(the axe on the wood),

And in the language of the Zohar ⁴³

(brought in Tanya ⁴⁴)

"A log that does not catch fire is beaten, etc.",

but it is understood that this is done through the ways of the Torah,

whose ways are ways of pleasantness, etc. ⁴⁵,

with joy and a good heart,

just as all matters of service must be done with joy and a good heart. And in our matter:

this "beating it" is done through the study of Torah in such a manner,

according to the explanation of the Zohar ⁴⁶ and as explained in Chassidus ⁴⁷ regarding "hard labor",

"with hard labor in mortar and bricks, etc." ⁴⁸,

"with hard labor — this is a difficulty; in mortar — this is a kal vachomer; and bricks — this is clarification of the halachah, etc.",

which is done with joy and a good heart.

And this joy breaks through barriers ⁴⁹,

until even the barriers of exile,

so that the redemption comes immediately,

in the manner of "immediately they are redeemed"

(in the language of halachah ⁵⁰).

And then the "These are the journeys of the children of Israel who went out of the land of Egypt" ends,

and one arrives in "a good and spacious land" ⁵¹,

until in the manner of "Hashem your God will enlarge your border" ⁵²,

"A great congregation shall return here" ⁵³,

"with our young and with our elders, etc., with our sons and with our daughters" ⁵⁴,

And speedily, in our days, literally.

Just as there is a directive from the highest extreme and general principle of time –

the single overview at the beginning of creation,

down to a level that is entirely above the category of extremes –

so too must there be a directive from the lowest extreme,

the particular point of the particular time.

How does one know the content of the particular time –

one must first and foremost look into the Torah,

the Torah of that time⁵⁵,

which also Torah "traveled and descended etc. from level to level in the chain of descent of the worlds until it clothed itself in physical things and matters of this world etc. in ink on the scroll"⁵⁶,

in time and place,

down to particular times –

so that each time and day has its unique Torah.

As is known the Chumash Tehillim Tanya study regimens

(Chumash, Tehillim, Tanya)

which the Rebbe, my father-in-law, the Nasi of our generation, established as equal study portions for every soul for every Jew in our generation

(being their Nasi) –

the daily portion:

in Chumash

(as divided for each day),

Tehillim

(as divided for the month),

and Tanya

(as divided for the year).

And contrary to the opinion of those who err,

that the study regimens are

(only)

as a part of the mitzvah of Torah study,

in which case there is room to say that the portion in the book of Tanya

(which is a part of the Oral Torah)

is not fulfilled unless one has understanding and comprehension in it as required

(which is a necessity in the study of the Oral Torah⁵⁷),

rather, primarily the Chumash Tehillim Tanya study regimens pertain to the life of one's soul

[and to note from the Tehillim portion which corresponds to the years of one's life *⁵⁷;

and the portion in Tanya,

the inner dimension of the Torah –

the inner life of one's soul,

as is known that the hidden aspect of Israel is connected with the hidden aspect of the Torah⁵⁸],

and just as the Chumash portion and the Tehillim portion are fulfilled even when one does not understand what he says,

it can be said that so too regarding the Tanya portion.

This is also an answer to those who mock with a "silken slipper" and claim that one need not learn the Tanya portion,

because it is not the custom of our forefathers,

and they claim it is in honor of the Alter Rebbe:

What does it mean that a simple Jew will go and recite the book of Tanya of the Alter Rebbe,

and then go around and boast that he understood what the Alter Rebbe intended –

it is the opposite of the honor of the Alter Rebbe! This insults him –

the honor of the Alter Rebbe...

Granted, the matter of "distance yourself from a false word"⁵⁹ –

this is only a prohibition,

he transgressed a prohibition;

but what insults him –

the honor of the Alter Rebbe! Therefore it is better not to learn Tanya,

and instead learn something else in Torah

(not, heaven forbid, to learn nothing at all).

The Nasi of our generation already warned,

that it is not relevant to calculate this way or that,

rather, since every Jew has a soul which is literally a part of Hashem above⁶⁰,

and the souls of this generation have descended

(from a high roof to a deep pit⁶¹)

after "it is a mitzvah to reveal this wisdom"⁶²,

even in the manner of "let your springs spread outward",

and after the enactment of the Chumash Tehillim Tanya study regimens –

every Jew has an obligation to study the inner dimension of the Torah,

and by virtue of the enactment of Chumash Tehillim Tanya –

the daily Tanya portion,

even if he does not understand it –

because the Chumash Tehillim Tanya study regimens are also for one who does not understand what he says, as above.

And especially since it is "springs" of the chosen one,

and a spring purifies from the father of impurity with any amount,

with a single drop⁶³

[from the perspective of the person, one needs that he be entirely covered by it⁶⁴,

but from the perspective of the spring,

a single drop is sufficient⁶⁵].

The lesson from the portion of Masei can be derived from the name of the entire portion

(which expresses the content of the entire portion):

"Masei" means that he travels

(goes)

away from his place. Not because the previous place was not proper,

it could be a "land flowing with milk and honey"

(as the Jews argued regarding the land of Egypt⁶⁶,

and they were not refuted on this particular point,

so it is understood that this was indeed the reality),

nevertheless the Torah says there must be "Masei",

to travel from there in order to arrive at a higher place.

From this the simple lesson is understood:

For a person there must be "Masei" –

he must travel from his place in order to arrive at a higher place,

which will add to him in the study of Torah etc.

He claims –

it is after all the day of Shabbos,

so then he may not travel,

and he must remain confined at home,

with a lit lamp, a set table, and a made bed⁶⁷,

and enjoy the delight of Shabbos,

and since it is a mitzvah from the Torah,

and it does not matter to him that it is rabbinic,

he must also fulfill it completely,

and not travel anywhere.

Nevertheless, there is the instruction of the Torah of truth from this time,

including from this Shabbos,

that there must be "Masei".

That is, that now

(at the time when we study the parshah)

his service to serve his Master consists of "Masei" also on Shabbos,

i.e., not traveling on Shabbos, Heaven forbid, obviously and simply,

but rather leaving his place before Shabbos,

so that on Shabbos he finds himself not in his home but in another place,

in order to learn there a matter in Torah,

which he would not have been able to hear in his place.

And among those Jews where there is no actual "Masei" –

they must learn from others among whom there is indeed the "Masei".

So too regarding the Jews who troubled themselves and came here for this Shabbos,

notwithstanding "the difficulties of travel"

(which are "harder for a man than for a woman"⁶⁸),

in order to be within the four cubits of Torah and prayer

(a place where Torah and prayer are magnified⁶⁹)

of the leader of our generation,

and to be at the farbrengen and hear a word from the leader of our generation, etc., which they could not hear in their place,

due to the animal soul;

from the perspective of his G‑dly soul he can remain in his place and learn the matter,

but from the perspective of his animal soul which is in this world, he needs advice for this,

he must sometimes leave his place to hear the word.

And the greatness of the matter in this is even more emphasized, standing during the Three Weeks,

when one must generally increase in matters that nullify the "because of our sins",

including the matter of love and unity of Israel,

"love truth and peace"⁷⁰,

and in this case –

they came here, more than ten of Israel –

a holy congregation –

and in a manner of love and unity of Israel.

Therefore, fortunate is the portion of the one who arranged it and brought the Jews,

in a manner of love and unity of Israel. For because of this alone Mashiach should have come!

And from this there is also a lesson in the matter of "Masei" for those whose place and home is in this place:

When one sees that other Jews who have the same traits and capabilities as he,

and they could have remained at home in rest and delight,

and nevertheless they troubled themselves and came here to the farbrengen,

notwithstanding the difficulties of travel –

then the lesson from this regarding those who are initially here is certainly understood!

And especially since those Jews were not privileged that their father taught them the inner dimension of Torah,

and nevertheless he comes here,

then it is certainly all the more so regarding those who were privileged that their father taught them the inner dimension of Torah!

So it is certainly understood how it appears when those who are here sit and sleep,

even if he has open eyes –

he thinks about what happened yesterday and what will happen tomorrow, etc....

So one is presented with –

without his effort

(as explained in Tanya⁷¹) –

a lesson and living example from the guests who troubled themselves and came here from another place in order to hear a word at the farbrengen. For they have,

as mentioned,

the same traits and capabilities as he,

and could have remained at home,

and eat kugel,

and then go to sleep with a deep sleep until after ratzon d'rayon and in the meantime dream of Minchah prayer and Torah reading,

as explained in Torah Or⁷² on "Vayeishev Yaakov in the land of his father's sojournings, in the land of Canaan" that the entire matter of exile is in the manner of "we were like dreamers"⁷³,

and therefore the service of holiness can then be in the manner of a "dream",

therefore there can be contradictions,

that in one moment he is in one state and in the next moment in the opposite state, etc.

And may it be His will that because of the addition in "bechukotai telechu"⁷⁴,

"telechu" literally

(in the manner of "Masei") –

may the Most High bless them with all the blessings enumerated afterwards in the parshah,

until "and I will grant peace in the land"⁷⁵,

and if there is peace here, everything is here⁷⁶,

and "and I will lead you upright"⁷⁷,

that even during the time of exile one should go "with an erect posture"⁷⁸ with all matters of Judaism.

And this should be drawn into all their matters –

in the physical and in the spiritual,

in children, life, and ample sustenance, and in all things ample,

and have nachas from children.

And merit that next year one should fulfill this further

(as the wording stands regarding several mitzvos⁷⁹),

but then it will be in Jerusalem, the holy city, may it be built and established,

for in the meantime Mashiach will come and these days will be turned into joy and gladness,

and there will be "Masei" in holiness itself⁸⁰,

Which is achieved through the fact that the service of "Masei" already exists in the present time,

one has the concept of "Masei" above in time as something placed in a box⁸¹,

and one hands over the box with the key,

and the matter depends only on his will to "open the chest",

as per the ruling of the Rambam⁸²,

that through one mitzvah "he tips himself and the entire world to the scale of merit and brings about for himself and for them salvation and deliverance",

until the primary salvation and deliverance –

the true and complete redemption through Mashiach Tzidkeinu.

[This sichah –

the lesson from Parshas Mattos,

and from the connection of Mattos and Masei –

is included on its own within the part of the sichah of this Shabbos that was edited by the Rebbe shlita and published in a separate pamphlet].

Maamar (similar to a sichah)

beginning "Eileh Masei" etc.

It is also customary to dwell on a matter in the weekly parshah together with Rashi;

a matter in the notes of the Tatte on the Zohar of our parshah;

a matter in Pirkei Avos

(on the Shabbosos when Pirkei Avos is studied);

a matter in the daily study portion of Rambam;

and during Bein HaMetzarim –

a matter in the laws of the Chosen House of the Rambam.

Regarding Rashi –

we will dwell on the fact that Rashi brings in several places in our parshah

(Parshas Mattos and Masei)

a statement in the name of its speaker,

the name of the author of the statement. As discussed many times the question about this:

Rashi's purpose is the plain meaning of Scripture

("I have come only for the plain meaning of Scripture")

⁸³. So whichever way you look at it:

If the explanation that Rashi brings is according to the plain meaning –

why does he need to bring the name of the author of the statement;

and if it is not according to the plain meaning –

Rashi should not bring it at all. One must say that when Rashi brings the name of the author of the statement, it is relevant and adds something to the plain meaning of Scripture. And as follows.

And as discussed once,

that it would be a proper thing to collect all the places where Rashi brings the name of the author of the statement, etc. Then everyone will be able to endeavor to explain the reason in each and every place why Rashi cites the name of the author of the statement.

But as with other matters,

after it was spoken about and accepted,

nothing was done!

This is not something that requires a lot of work –

it is not a craft and not wisdom,

one only needs to gather the places where Rashi brings the name of the author of the statement,

and one does not need to explain it,

that can be left for others –

nevertheless, no one did it! Why? Perhaps Eliyahu HaNavi will answer this just as he will answer all other questions and difficulties *¹⁸³

Similarly regarding the request⁸⁴ that one should himself propose difficult matters in Rashi in order to sharpen oneself to search,

and primarily –

in order to sharpen oneself regarding duplications.

Nevertheless, one cannot effect that questions that have already been raised before should not be printed.

Similarly regarding what was spoken about collecting and printing the explanations on Rashi,

and it is already ten years since it was printed and since then nothing has come out even though it was promised that it would be continued.

In the meantime I have tried to hint about this many times,

but to no avail.

And this is regarding several matters:

One speaks about a matter,

afterwards one records it,

and one asks that it be proofread so that there should be no error there. But afterwards one puts it –

Sometimes one would say it between two backs,

but nowadays at least one back –

and one puts it away on the shelf,

and there it remains lying...

True indeed,

that one spoke about this before ten years and the like,

and it could be that it was before he was born or before he heard the things,

nevertheless, there were others present who indeed heard,

and despite this...

It has become a method of "sit and do nothing."

[Here he spoke about the situation in the neighborhood.

Afterwards –

at the conclusion of the talk –

he spoke about organizing sessions during the intermediate days and it was included in the aforementioned booklet].

Regarding Rashi –

one will make at least a beginning of the collection of places where Rashi brings the name of the author of the statement –

by pausing

(at least briefly)

on several places in our parshah where Rashi mentions the name of the author of the statement:

a) In Parshat Masei

(chapter 33, verse 49)

beginning with "from Beit HaYeshimot to Avel HaShitim":

"Here it taught you the measure of the camp of Israel, twelve mil,

as Rabbah bar bar Chanah said: ⁸⁴ I myself saw that place, etc.'"

One already spoke about this once ⁸⁵,

but there are several matters that require emendation and correction in the list of those words,

and also –

several additions about which one did not speak at that time,

as follows.

b) In Parshat Matot

(chapter 31, verse 17)

beginning with "kill" ⁸⁶:

"Why did it repeat and say to interrupt the matter? The words of Rabbi Yishmael,

for if I read 'kill every male among the children and every woman who knows a man and every child among the women, etc.,' I do not know whether to kill with the males or to keep alive with the children,

therefore it is said 'kill.'"

c) There

(verse 18)

beginning with "every killer of a soul" ⁸⁷:

"Rabbi Meir says: The verse speaks of one who kills with something that can become impure, etc.'"

And as will be explained below.

In the notes of my father, the Tzemach Tzedek –

there are no notes in our parshah,

but elsewhere ⁸⁸ he dwells on the double merkha at the end of Parshat Matot,

and he explains that the three times in the Torah where the reason for the double merkha appears ⁸⁹ –

"lu,"

"lo,"

"lah" –

correspond to Binah

(alef), Zeir Anpin (vav)

and Malchut

(hei).

He does not, however, explain the matter in the service of Hashem. And as will be explained below.

This Shabbat one begins again to study Pirkei Avot from its beginning. Immediately at the start there is a wonder,

upon which no one dwells:

The Mishnah says "Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua, etc., to the Elders, etc., to the Prophets, etc., to the Men of the Great Assembly." And the first statement in Pirkei Avot

("matters of piety" ⁹⁰)

brings the Mishnah only from the Men of the Great Assembly and Shimon HaTzaddik, who was of the remnants of the Great Assembly –

and it does not bring any statement of "matters of piety" from all the generations until then?!

And as will be explained below.

In connection with the statement of the Men of the Great Assembly "and raise up many students" –

this is the place to mention again regarding the establishment

(or strengthening)

of a "Chabad House" in every place,

whose purpose is a "house of gathering for sages" ⁹¹ to accomplish "and raise up many students," and

(first)

afterwards also "and make a fence for the Torah,"

gone through with Chabad,

until this will reach all Jews –

"many students,"

as is known the words of the Alter Rebbe ⁹² that Chabad Chassidut is not a factional matter, but rather it is relevant and pertains to all Jews, and ultimately it will reach everyone.

Since there is someone who provided drink in connection with a "Chabad House" in his place –

let him now approach and say "L'Chaim,"

and afterwards include those present here by giving them a portion of the drink,

and the rest –

at the farbrengen that he will make upon returning to his place,

and let him announce about this now.

May it be His will that it be with great success in quantity and quality.

[His Holiness, the Rebbe, shlita, gave a jug of drink (for the "Chabad House" in Paula,

Brazil).

And he commanded the aforementioned to announce about the time and place, etc.

Afterwards he began to sing "And I will empty out for you a blessing"].

The explanation in Rashi

(in Parshat Masei):

Yesterday they discussed ⁸⁵ that Rashi's commentary on the entire verse is difficult,

and therefore he explains that the verse comes to teach that "the measure of the camp of Israel is twelve mil." And based on this, they then asked:

If the entire verse only comes to teach that the measure of the camp of Israel is twelve mil,

the verse should have stated this explicitly. And they explained that this is for sharpening the intellect,

so that one should measure it himself, etc.,

as explained there in the elucidation of this matter.

However, this is not consistent with the plain meaning itself. As has been discussed many times,

that sometimes a matter is discussed in the plain meaning for the sake of sharpening the intellect or for the sake of Chassidus and mussar, etc.:

From Rashi's language "here it taught you" it is understood that this

(the measure of the camp of Israel)

is only an additional teaching from the verse,

but not the essential plain meaning of the verse.

That is, there is a plain meaning in the verse. And in addition to this –

the verse comes "to teach you" the measure of the camp of Israel. And the explanation:

This verse comes to say in which city the Jews encamped,

just as the preceding verses state the name of the city of all the encampments before this.

Therefore, there is no place to say,

that the verse should initially state "and Israel encamped twelve mil" and the like,

because according to the plain meaning the verse does not come to state the measure of the camp of Israel,

but rather the name of the place of the encampment,

just as the verse states regarding the encampments before this.

However, with this there is a difficulty in the verse:

Why does it state here the phrase "from Beis HaYeshimos to Avel HaShitim" –

something that is not stated in all the forty-two encampments before this?

In all the encampments before this, only the name of the place where the encampment was is stated. And simply, the Jews endeavored that the encampments should be in a place and inhabited city

(unlike here, where it states that the encampment was "from Beis HaYeshimos to Avel HaShitim," i.e., between two cities).

Therefore, it is almost certain that also this last encampment "from Beis HaYeshimos to Avel HaShitim" was in these two cities,

and not in an empty space in between.

If so –

why does the verse not state

(as in all the other forty-two encampments)

"Beis HaYeshimos and Avel HaShitim,"

but rather "from Beis HaYeshimos to Avel HaShitim"?

Therefore, [Rashi] explains that with this the verse comes to teach an additional lesson:

"Here it taught you the measure of the camp of Israel,"

and how large is this –

"twelve mil,

the area 'from Beis HaYeshimos to Avel HaShitim.'"

Why does the verse come to teach "the measure of the camp of Israel is twelve mil"? What is the practical difference?

This is understood simply by a five-year-old –

because this measure is relevant to several laws of Shabbos,

regarding eiruv and hotza'ah, etc. ⁹³

Based on this, one will also understand why the verse comes to teach it specifically here,

for seemingly:

If the verse wants to teach the measure of the camp of Israel –

it should have been stated the first time in the Torah where the camp of Israel is discussed –

in Parshas Beha'aloscha ⁹⁴,

at least the first time where the actual journeying and encamping of the Children of Israel is discussed –

at the end of Parshas Chukas,

where Rashi indeed explains "it is brought in Berachos 'HaRo'eh' ⁹⁵ the main mountain is three parsa'os, etc.,"

and it is explained in the Gemara there that the reason for this is because the camp of Israel was "three parsa'os"

(twelve mil) –

why does the Torah only come to teach it in Parshas Masei,

when Moshe recounts the journeys,

and there itself –

only at the very last encampment?

And the explanation of this is:

Since the Torah comes to state the measure of the camp of Israel is twelve mil because this is relevant to several laws of Shabbos as above –

it is understood that the Torah comes to state it where it is practically relevant:

As long as the Jews were in the desert with Moshe Rabbeinu,

this was not practically relevant,

because they could ask Moshe Rabbeinu all the details of the laws regarding Shabbos and the like;

but when the Jews are already at the point of entering the Land of Israel –

in Parshas Masei –

and at the last encampment on the other side of the Jordan,

and Moshe will soon pass away,

precisely here it is relevant "to teach you the measure of the camp of Israel is twelve mil" so that they should know how to conduct themselves in the Land of Israel

(when Moshe will not be there)

regarding the laws of Shabbos.

Based on this, one will also understand why Rashi writes here the phrase "twelve mil" and not "three parsa'os"

(as in the Gemara ⁸⁴ –

the source of Rashi's words here, and)

as Rashi writes earlier at the end of Parshas Chukas:

In the end of parshas Chukas, the measure of the camp of Israel is not relevant;

on the contrary –

there, only the expression of the wonder of the power of Og king of Bashan is relevant, and the wonder in this that Moshe killed him. And the wonder in this is more emphasized when one says "three parsa" than "twelve mil" –

as one sees simply that when one wants to describe the wonder of a great thing, one says a number of a larger measure,

a parsa,

and not a large number of a small measure –

two thousand amos. Therefore Rashi says there "three parsa".

However, in our parshah, where it is relevant to the laws of Shabbos –

one must say the measure that is stated in the actual laws and halachos,

and that is –

twelve mil.

With this, the question arises regarding a child of five studying Scripture:

From where does Rashi know that the measure of the camp of Israel

("from Beis HaYeshimos to Avel HaShittim")

is twelve mil:

The places are from ancient times and in the desert and have long been destroyed –

so does Rashi know,

many years later in France,

how much was "from Beis HaYeshimos to Avel HaShittim"),

is it not through prophecy?

Rashi answers that there was a Jew who went there and measured it. The question arises:

Who would go and occupy himself with measuring it? And also:

What did they do in all the generations before that Jew measured it –

for even then they knew the law of twelve mil?

Therefore Rashi brings the name of the one who measured it –

"for Rabbah bar bar Chanah said: I myself saw that place, etc." –

because when the child of five will inquire, they will tell him,

that Rabbah bar bar Chanah [and one must correct what is stated in the aforementioned list that he was a Tanna –

according to what is stated in Seder HaDoros⁹⁶ he was in the time of the Amoraim and was himself an Amora] was distinguished by this, that he used to travel on the road

(certainly he studied Torah on the road)

and wander from place to place, and he used to measure and clarify many matters in Torah, and he saw the "dead of the wilderness" and the "swallowed ones of Korach"⁹⁷,

and afterwards came to the Beis HaMidrash and brought proofs to Torah from his investigations.

Based on this, it is understood,

that by bringing the name of the author of the statement

(Rabbah bar bar Chanah)

Rashi answers a) how does it come that someone would go and measure it,

and b) what was in the generations before –

that indeed, truly,

even before Rabbah bar bar Chanah they knew that the camp of Israel was twelve mil,

but Rabbah bar bar Chanah brought to this a proof from reality,

that "I myself saw that place, etc.",

just as he brought proofs to other matters in Torah

(which were known without this).

The explanation in Rashi on the words "he killed him" where he brings the interpretation in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:

The interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael is connected with how one should read the verses:

"Why did it repeat and say to interrupt the subject? The words of Rabbi Yishmael,

for if I read 'kill every male among the little ones and every woman who knows a man and all the little ones among the women, etc.' I do not know whether to kill with the males or to keep alive with the little ones,

therefore it is said 'kill them'."

According to the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael it is understood that the verse is not like the "one of five verses that have no decisive reading"⁹⁸.

However, without the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael –

"I do not know whether to kill with the males or to keep alive with the little ones",

"to know where they incline".

And based on this it is understood why Rashi brings the matter in the name of its speaker –

because "Rabbi Yishmael says: The Torah is expounded by thirteen hermeneutical principles"⁹⁹,

i.e., that Rabbi Yishmael was distinguished by his knowledge of the general rules of the methods of Torah study. Therefore this further strengthens the interpretation that specifically Rabbi Yishmael

(who is distinguished by his knowledge of the general rules of the Torah)

says the interpretation of how one must place the verse.

Regarding this Rashi on the words "anyone who kills a soul" where Rashi brings the interpretation in the name of Rabbi Meir –

one will rely on "give¹⁰⁰ to the wise and he will become wiser",

and perhaps one will be able to grasp the explanation on one's own.

[The explanation in Likutei Levi Yitzchak –

is included in the aforementioned sicha (which was reviewed by the Rebbe shlita and published separately).

Today's Rambam study is in the Laws of the Chosen House

(chapters 2-3-4),

therefore one can fulfill both study sessions

(both the daily study of Rambam and the study of the Laws of the Chosen House according to Rambam during the Three Weeks)

with the same subject:

There is a well-known question¹⁰¹ why the Rambam does not write all the laws of making the Ark,

as he writes regarding the other Temple vessels;

he only mentions the Ark

(in today's study¹⁰²)

"in passing",

that "there was a stone in the Holy of Holies on its western side upon which the Ark was placed etc."?!

It was once discussed

(and already printed¹⁰³),

prefacing the dispute between the Rambam and the Ramban regarding the making of the Temple vessels in the counting of the commandments¹⁰⁴:

The Rambam does not count the making of the vessels as a separate commandment.

Because the general command regarding the Temple "includes many kinds, namely the Menorah, the Table, the Altar, and the rest of them, all are parts of the Temple and all are called Temple etc."¹⁰⁵,

The Ramban¹⁰⁶ argues with him and writes "and the reason that the Master wrote, that they are parts of the Temple, was not acceptable to me,

because the vessels are not a part of the structures, but they are two commandments and they do not impede one another, and one may offer sacrifices in the Temple even if it does not have these vessels,

therefore, in my opinion, the making of the Ark and the Cover to place the Testimony there should be counted as a separate commandment."

However, one sees that also according to the Rambam there is a distinction between the Ark and the other vessels:

When the Rambam explains the reason why he does not count the Menorah, Table, and Altar, he does not mention the Ark.

It was explained,

that the reason for this is –

because the other vessels are a part and detail of the Temple,

but the Ark is not a part of the Temple, rather it is a separate entity that adds holiness to the Temple,

but there is no positive commandment

(once the Temple is built)

to make an Ark,

therefore Josiah was able to hide the Ark¹⁰⁷,

and in the Second Temple the Ark was not present¹⁰⁸,

because the Ark is not a part

(essential)

of the essence of the law of the Temple.

Therefore the Rambam does not count it together with the other vessels.

And in the Laws of the Chosen House –

he speaks at length only about the other vessels,

because "all are parts of the Temple and all are called Temple",

but regarding the Ark he does not write,

because the Ark is a separate matter.

However, this explanation is not simple,

because ultimately, since in the Written Torah there is a command¹⁰⁹ "and they shall make an Ark etc." with all its details,

the Rambam should have brought it, as we see elsewhere that the Rambam takes into account verses in the Torah,

to the extent that "sometimes he brings a verse not mentioned in the Gemara at all because it is more explicit"¹¹⁰].

It is true indeed,

the Ark only adds holiness to the Temple,

but is not a part of the Temple –

nevertheless,

since there is an explicit verse, the Rambam should have written about it,

not merely "in passing"?

The explanation for this is –

as the Rogatchover answers¹¹¹

[and it seems that this is the true answer]:

The Ark "was not in the category of service vessels of the Mishkan and Temple and does not impede. Therefore our Master, may his memory be for blessing, did not bring at all the category of making the Ark and the Cover."

That is, the Ark is entirely not in the category of service vessels of the Mishkan and Temple,

not even as an addition of holiness,

therefore the Rambam does not bring at all regarding the category of making the Ark.

And it is sweetened according to what the Rambam wrote¹¹² that "most of the laws of the Torah are only etc. to correct the opinions and to straighten all deeds":

The entire essence of the Ark is –

Torah,

as it is written¹¹³ "in the Ark there were only the two tablets of stone." One cannot say that the Ark –

Torah –

is a service vessel for the sake of something else. This is the opposite of the entire concept of "to correct the opinions etc."! On the contrary:

All things were created for the sake of the Torah¹¹⁴!

And particularly according to what is explained in Chassidus about the great wonder of the Torah,

that there is nothing above it –

"the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are entirely one"¹¹⁵.

And this concept is also according to the Ramban

(who counts the Ark as a separate commandment) –

as is known what the Ramban writes¹¹⁶ that "the primary desire in the Mishkan is the place of the resting of the Divine Presence etc., therefore he preceded the Ark etc., because it is primary in level."

And one can say the explanation of this in greater depth,

that what the Ark is "the primary desire in the Mishkan" is

(according to what was discussed above that the Ark is not a service vessel in the Mishkan) –

that the entire Mishkan and Holy of Holies are for the sake of the Ark,

Torah¹¹⁷.

Not only is the Ark not a service vessel for the Mishkan and Mikdash,

but on the contrary –

the Mishkan and Mikdash exist for the sake of the Ark

(Torah), which

(Torah)

is higher than all matters.

But just as the Ark

(Torah)

descends below, it also effects an addition in the holiness of the Mikdash,

because Torah

(for which all matters were created)

brings completeness to all matters,

therefore it must also descend into the Mikdash,

and there effect an added holiness. But the essence of the Ark does not consist of this,

because the Ark

(Torah)

is above all matters and all matters were created for its sake.

[The explanation in Pirkei Avos –

is included in the aforementioned sicha (which was reviewed by the Rebbe shlita and published separately)].

Afterwards, he spoke about several instructions related to these days –

Torah study,

charity,

education,

Shmitah –

and is included in the aforementioned sicha.

Afterwards, he instructed to sing "Milkhatchila Ariber".

And to the shliach tzibbur shlita –

"Yehi ratzon etc. that the Beis HaMikdash be built etc.".

Afterwards, he said:

Those who need to recite a berachah acharonah,

will certainly recite a berachah acharonah].