English translation — שיחת ש"פ ויצא, י"א כסלו ה'תשמ"ז

The first two talks —

were reviewed by the Rebbe, shlita,

and will be printed as a separate pamphlet.

A discourse (in the form of a talk)

beginning with the verse "And I will return in peace," etc.

It is also customary to study a topic in Rashi on the weekly portion,

a topic in the glosses on the Zohar,

and a topic in the daily study of the Rambam.

In particular, a farbrengen is connected with Yud Tes Kislev,

the festival of redemption of the Middle Rebbe,

whose essence is "Rechovot HaNahar" of Binah¹ —

there must be in this an addition and expansion, etc.

And before this, this is not the place to protest a strange thing,

or a wild thing,

at any rate, an incomprehensible matter:

In accordance with what was requested² that one should himself raise difficult points in Rashi,

in order to protest that one should not repeat a topic that has already been discussed —

this was indeed fulfilled,

but it remained that only questions are asked,

and one does not endeavor to answer anything!

They print in the various collections a multitude of questions,

as the good hand of Hashem is upon them³,

but among all these questions —

there is not a single answer! A question is asked,

and then he immediately goes off strolling,

or looking for other questions!

For it is impossible that out of thirty questions on Rashi there should not be a single question that no one can answer!

It is, after all, about questions on Rashi, which was written for a child of five years of age studying Scripture —

this certainly applies all the more so to the understanding of the questioners in the collections,

who are older than that. So how can it be that among all these questioners there is not one who can answer even one of the many questions:

Among the questioners there are beginners,

and those who have studied more,

up to those who have studied for many years;

and it is understood,

that what is a question for a beginner in study,

can be answered by one who has studied the topic more.

Today, how does it happen that among all these questions —

not a single one can be answered at all?!

Neither anyone from there,

and even not from Eretz Yisrael,

where "one of them is equivalent to two of us"⁴,

they must be greater scholars...

And the main question is on the "editorial board",

who are an "editorial board" simply because they have more knowledge. The "editorial board" should have written an answer, whether as a possibility or as a certainty, to several of the questions.

As an exception, one sometimes finds that an answer is indeed written;

but as a general rule

— [The Rebbe, shlita, smiled]

Once it was said,

that when does one know that a rule is a rule —

when there is an exception —

They print all these questions without any effort to write an answer!

I thought:

What is the reason for this? Until I caught myself:

Since it was only mentioned that one should ask questions,

and it was not said

(with sufficient forcefulness)

that one should also endeavor to answer something —

they fulfilled the "command" to ask questions,

and further,

it was assumed,

that "the time has not yet come" to answer the questions!...

The proposal

(that one should himself raise difficult points in Rashi)

was not so that I could demonstrate a trick that I can answer it;

if it were for my sake —

even if they had written thirty answers to the thirty questions —

I would also have had enough work,

and why get involved and have complaints about matters, etc.!...

In addition to the above, there is another matter:

Even when one asks a question on a Rashi,

one asks only the superficial question,

and does not think more deeply into the matter,

whether there is an even greater question there.

And similarly in our portion:

Several questions were asked on Rashi at the beginning of our portion,

where Rashi quotes from the verse⁵ the words "and he encountered the place",

and explains:

"Scripture did not mention in which place,

but it is the place mentioned elsewhere, that is Mount Moriah,

concerning which it is said⁶ 'and he saw the place from afar.'"

And they also asked the superficial and ordinary question:

Since Rashi explains only the word "the place" —

why does he quote from the verse also the word "and he encountered"?

When one looks into the matter, however, one sees that in continuation of the above question, there is an even greater question here:

In this Rashi, Rashi comments on the word "and he encountered" and explains the explanation in this.

Accordingly, the even greater question arises:

Since in the first explanation

(on "and he encountered the place")

Rashi explains only the word "the place" —

shouldn't the explanation have come after the explanation

(later⁷)

on the word "and he encountered"

(which precedes "the place")?!

It could be understood if Rashi had explained both words "and he encountered the place" —

then it would enter into the inquiry⁶,

that when Rashi has two explanations on one word and matter,

whether he precedes the explanation of the general content of the matter and then enters into the explanation of the details⁷,

or the opposite⁸;

But in our case, where Rashi explains only "the place" —

there is no place for the explanation to come before the explanation on "and he encountered".

Regarding the above question about quoting the language of the verse —

they also asked on a later Rashi:

On the verse⁹ "And it was when Lavan heard the report of Yaakov, his sister's son, and he ran to meet him, and he embraced him, and he kissed him" —

the question arises:

How does Lavan suddenly have such warmth that is not fitting for him?!

Rashi explains:

"And he ran to meet him —

he thought he was laden with money,

for the servant of the household

(Eliezer, the servant of Avraham)

came here with ten camels laden¹⁰,

"And he embraced —

when he did not see anything with him, he said perhaps he brought gold coins and they are in his bosom",

"And he kissed him —

he said perhaps he brought pearls and they are in his mouth."

They asked:

Why regarding "and he embraced" does Rashi not quote the word "him",

and regarding "and he kissed" he also quotes the word "him";

It is a contradiction within itself —

For whichever way you look at it:

If the word "him" is relevant —

Rashi should have quoted it also regarding "and he embraced";

And if it is not relevant —

why does he quote it regarding "and he kissed"?!

As an addition

(in connection with Yud Tes Kislev) —

we will dwell on another matter in Rashi

(which was raised):

When Yosef was born it is stated¹¹ that Rachel said "Elokim has gathered my disgrace." Rashi comments on the word "gathered" and explains:

"He brought it into a place where it will not be seen",

and he brings four proofs for this:

"And similarly 'the leprosy was gathered'¹²,

'and it shall not be gathered into the house'¹³,

'gather their splendor'¹⁴,

'and your dew shall not be gathered'¹⁵,

'it shall not be hidden.'"

They asked the simple question:

a) If the first proof is a proof —

why does Rashi need to bring another three proofs? b) The proofs are not in the order of the verses.

In addition, however, there are further questions that were not asked:

a) What is lacking in the verse —

that Rashi needs to give an explanation at all?

b) The explanation that "Elokim has gathered my disgrace" means "He brought it into a place where it will not be seen" —

is seemingly a strange explanation,

that instead of saying that the disgrace was removed,

one says that it was hidden?

The topic in the glosses of my father on the Zohar —

and with an introduction:

They sought a hint in our portion regarding the concept of "Beit Chabad".

It is found in a verse in our portion. And even more emphatically in the explanation of the Zohar on that verse,

and particularly in connection with the elucidation in the glosses of my father on the Zohar:

In this week's portion, our father Yaakov says¹⁶ "and this stone, which I have set as a pillar, shall be a house of Elokim" —

similar to the concept of "Beit Chabad",

which is not merely like "this stone, which I have set as a pillar",

but a "house" —

"a house of Elokim".

And this is stated even more emphatically according to the explanation of the Zohar on the verse,

on which my father comments in his glosses on the Zohar of our portion —

as will be explained below,

and with an introduction of a question on this:

In the Zohar¹⁷ he asks why it says "house of Elokim" and not "house of Hashem". And he explains:

"It is a place of the court from two supernal sides,

from the side of the Jubilee, which is Elokim Chayim,

and from the side of Yitzchak, Elokim." And then he continues:

"Rabbi Elazar said: The Jubilee, although judgments are aroused from it, etc., all joy issues from it, and it is the joy of all,

but 'house of Elokim' is the side of severe judgment, etc.,

Rabbi Shimon said: 'House of Elokim' is that which is written¹⁸ 'the city of the great King',

there is a plain king and there is a great king; certainly the supernal world is the great king, and this is the city of the great king."

My father writes:

"Explanation: 'House of Elokim' can be explained as referring to two sides,

either to the Jubilee, Binah, or to Yitzchak, the attribute of Gevurah,

and not to both together,

for it is written 'house' in the singular, and not 'houses' in the plural. Now, Rabbi Elazar explains that it refers to severe judgment,

the left side,

the aspect of Yitzchak, the attribute of Gevurah. And this is that the stone, Malchut

(which is also an aspect of Elokim,

the lower Elokim, etc.)

shall be a house of Elokim of Gevurah,

Yitzchak, etc.

And Rabbi Shimon explains that it refers to Binah, which is called 'the city of the great King',

for 'great King' must necessarily be explained as referring to Binah, etc."

That is, my father explains that in the explanation of "house of Elokim" there are two opinions:

Rabbi Elazar holds that it refers to Gevurah

(Yitzchak),

and Rabbi Shimon holds that it refers to Binah

(the Jubilee).

That is, either Gevurah or Binah,

but "not to both together".

Accordingly, one must understand —

how this accords with what was said above that "Beit Chabad" is similar to and analogous to "house of Elokim":

Regarding "Beit Chabad" it was said¹⁹ that it is a "house" not only for one matter,

but for all matters,

for all three lines —

Torah, service, and acts of kindness, and

(the acronym "Eshel")

eating, drinking, lodging, etc.²⁰;

whereas "house of Elokim"

(according to my father's explanation)

specifically does not refer to two matters,

but "either to the Jubilee, Binah, or to Yitzchak, the attribute of Gevurah,

and not to both together"?!

And in essence, this is a question on the Zohar itself —

not specifically in connection with "Beit Chabad",

which is mentioned now in order to again arouse and say that one should establish a "Beit Chabad" in every place:

It is, after all, understood that Yaakov's prayer "And I will return in peace to my father's house, and Hashem will be my Elokim, and this stone, which I have set as a pillar, shall be a house of Elokim, etc." was certainly in a manner of ultimate perfection

[and particularly according to what was discussed above in the discourse on this verse,

taken from the discourses of our Rebbes on the verse²¹ (and it can be said that the foundation of several matters in these discourses is from the aforementioned Zohar) that the prayer refers to the future to come, when there will be ultimate perfection,

"And I will return in peace",

"two peaces",

peace in the supernal retinue and peace in the lower retinue²²].

And based on this —

How can one explain that "house of Elokim" refers only to one matter

(Gevurah or Binah),

"and not to both together" —

which is, after all, not ultimate perfection;

ultimate perfection means that one has all matters,

not only one matter?!

And as will be explained below.

In today's study of the Rambam, in the Laws of Neighbors, we learn about the laws of Bar Metzra.

And according to the principle of the Rambam²³ that "most of the laws of the Torah are only to rectify opinions and to settle all actions",

one must derive from today's study of the Rambam a matter in the rectification of opinions. And as will be explained below.

Before proceeding to the melody —

we will explain the "difficult question" on Rashi that was asked at the previous farbrengen²⁴,

and thereby also demonstrate the manner in which one must sometimes answer a "difficult question":

In Parshat Chayei Sarah, on the verse²⁵ "And I came today", Rashi explains:

"Today I left and today I came,

from here [we learn] that the earth skipped for him."

They asked:

Why was it necessary here to come to a special miracle —

"that the earth skipped for him"?

And if one will answer,

that it was necessary because Rivkah was then three years old,

fit for marital relations²⁶,

therefore the Omnipresent did not want to delay the match and marriage of Yitzchak and Rivkah —

then the question arises: why was there no miraculous shortening of the way for Eliezer and Rivkah on the return journey from Charan,

for according to this reason

(that the marriage of Yitzchak and Rivkah should not be delayed)

there should have been a miraculous shortening of the way also on the return journey.

One cannot answer that Eliezer had a miraculous shortening of the way on the way there in order to show Besuel

(by telling him "Today I left and today I came")

that he is a successful man²⁷

(and therefore there was no need for a miraculous shortening of the way on the return journey because Besuel would not know of it) —

for it is not correct to say that he had a miraculous shortening of the way only for the sake of Besuel,

but simply, a miraculous shortening of the way occurs for a person who has a connection to it from his own side

(due to his merit, etc.).

Accordingly, the above question arises:

Since Eliezer was one who was worthy of a miraculous shortening of the way

(on the way to Charan),

why did this not occur also on the return journey?

And this is proven from the very fact that Eliezer had a miraculous shortening of the way

(even on the way there).

For seemingly it is not understood:

There is a rule that "the Holy One, blessed be He, does not perform a miracle for no reason"²⁸,

and "one does not rely on a miracle"²⁹. Accordingly, the question arises:

If the reason for the miracle of the shortening of the way was only because Rivkah was then three years old,

and they no longer wanted to postpone the match and marriage —

then Avraham should not have relied on a miracle,

and should have sent his servant Eliezer³⁴ days earlier

(according to what is stated in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer³⁰,

that from Be'er Sheva to Charan is a journey of ¹⁷ days),

or ³⁵ days,

in order to give him a day to conduct matchmaking in the family of Rivkah

(as it is stated that he was there one day,

"and they lodged —

every lodging in Scripture means a lodging of one night"³¹);

then the matter would have been conducted in a natural manner,

and there would have been no need to come to a miracle of the earth skipping for him?

From this very fact it is proven,

that the miraculous shortening of the way of Eliezer was not

(only)

in order not to delay the match and marriage,

but because Eliezer had a connection to the miraculous shortening of the way also from his own side. Now, why did he not have a miraculous shortening of the way also on the return journey?

The way to answer such a "difficult question" is quite simple:

A "difficult question" means that it is a great and powerful question.

Sometimes the answer to a "hard question" can be —

from it and from it:

Since it is such a great and mighty question and one has all the logical arguments to say that by Eliezer there should have been a miraculous shortening of the way also on the return journey —

the simple answer to this is:

It is indeed so —

By him there was indeed a miraculous shortening of the way also on the return journey! Because the question is reversed:

If it is so proven that by him there was indeed a miraculous shortening of the way also on the return journey —

From where does one know that by him it was indeed not so?!

Only from this very thing it is proven that by him it was indeed so.

And the question is —

Why does Rashi not write it

(just as he writes it regarding the way there) —

This is because it is not explicit in the verse,

Rashi does not need to write it. And the question is —

Why does the verse not write it? This too is simple:

Since it is so compelled from the content of the matters in the simple meaning of Scripture that it was so —

The verse does not need to write it. This is understandable regarding the way there —

Were it not for this that the verse writes "Today I went out and today I came" —

One would not know that he had a connection to the miraculous shortening of the way;

But after the verse says this,

And one has logical arguments and proofs in the simple meaning of Scripture that it was also so on the return journey, this is the best proof that it was indeed so,

And the verse does not need to write it.

Just as the verse does not need to write that every day of the forty years in the desert the miracle of the descent of the manna occurred;

It is enough that the verse writes it the first time

(because then it was a novelty)

that "And the children of Israel ate the manna forty years until they came to an inhabited land, the manna etc." ³²,

But after this the verse does not need to repeat it every single day,

Because it is understood by itself that it was so

[And only when it comes to another novelty in the matter —

In the portion of the complainers ³²* —

Does the verse speak about the manna].

Now the question becomes:

Since this is a simple answer —

Why did no one grasp onto this?

And furthermore, and mainly:

The above is from the aspect of logic —

That according to logic it is proven to say that by him there was a miraculous shortening of the way also on the return journey;

In addition to this, however, one has an explicit source:

Thus it states explicitly in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer ³⁰ that also on the return journey there was a miraculous shortening of the way by Eliezer!

And although this is a midrash,

It is not a contradiction to the simple meaning of Scripture,

And on the contrary —

Thus it is proven from the simple meaning of the verses.

According to this, the claim becomes even stronger:

Since it is stated in the midrash ** —

Why did no one grasp onto this?!

Even if one answers that one studies Chumash with Rashi and not Midrash Rabba,

And all the more so and a fortiori that even one who studies Choshen Mishpat with Ketzos —

Perhaps also does not study Midrash Rabba —

— It is stated, however, also in Targum Yonatan ben Uziel ³³ which is printed in the Chumash on the spot!

Furthermore:

In "Torah Shleimah" ³³ he collects the midrashim of Chazal on the verses —

He brings there the Midrash Rabba where it states that the miraculous shortening of the way was also on the return journey.

One no longer needs to come to any scholarly effort —

One only needs to open the book "Torah Shleimah" and see what he brings —

What is already the great self-sacrifice in this?!

Nevertheless,

After all the talk and heart

(pain)

tearing —

I am not successful in effecting that when one teaches a subject one should look around in the commentaries,

in the midrashim etc.

And as mentioned,

What has it taken from me —

That now one no longer needs to come to any self-sacrifice and exertion —

One only needs to open the book "Torah Shleimah" —

And one knows of this book,

Because it is brought in the pamphlets,

And also in the farbrengens the book is mentioned —

Where all the midrashim of Chazal etc. on the verses are collected.

It is already more than three times five years

(not only three years)

That one tears out the heart —

And one is not successful

(lacking a little).

It is not my personal matter —

This is a responsibility on each and every one individually. However, there are Jews with white beards —

They could have said that it is stated in Torah Shleimah.

And especially since there are mashpi'im,

Not only one,

But three mashpi'im,

And there are those who have fulfilled "Make for yourself a rav",

At least on paper —

One must go to the "rav" and ask whether he needs to look into "Torah Shleimah". And if the "rav" is "cruel" —

He will answer him:

Yes! You need to look there! And consequently he must obey the "rav" —

Because about this it was commanded "Make for yourself a rav",

In order that one should obey him!

And may it be His will that we all,

among the entirety of Israel,

should go dancing to greet our righteous Mashiach,

And in the manner of "And angels of G-d met him" ³⁴,

angels of the Land of Israel and angels of the Diaspora ³⁵,

And then immediately entering into the Land of Israel,

"with our young and with our old etc. with our sons and with our daughters" ³⁶,

and "their silver and their gold with them" ³⁷,

together with the entire Torah,

together with all the "hard questions" and "hard answers",

And out of joy and goodness of heart,

and the main thing —

speedily in our days, literally.

The explanation in Rashi

(on "And he arrived at the place"):

If Rashi had only cited the word "at the place"

(and not "and he arrived") —

The five-year-old student of Scripture would have asked with a storm:

How can you say that "Scripture did not mention in which place" —

When it is stated explicitly in the verse:

"And Jacob went out from Be'er Sheva and went to Charan",

and Rashi explains "he went out to go to Charan",

"and he arrived at the place",

i.e., that immediately upon leaving Be'er Sheva on the way to Charan

(to go to Charan)

one encounters this place. Consequently one knows which place this is —

the place that one encounters immediately upon leaving Be'er Sheva on the way to Charan. Now how can you say that "Scripture did not mention in which place"?!

Therefore Rashi also cites the word "and he arrived",

to protect against this, that although it does not state simply "at the place",

but "and he arrived at the place" which indeed indicates that the place is in proximity to Be'er Sheva on the way to Charan,

there are, however, several places in proximity to Be'er Sheva on the way to Charan;

But from that which is stated in the verse "at the place",

with a patach under the bet —

that "every bet, lamed, and heh that serve at the beginning of a word and are vocalized with a patach speak of a thing that is well-known, already mentioned elsewhere etc." ³⁸ —

One can know which place this is by seeking the place "mentioned elsewhere",

which is "Mount Moriah, about which it is said, 'And he saw the place from afar'".

[Based on this, the question of the commentators on Rashi ³⁹ is also answered:

"From where does he know to say that it is Mount Moriah? Perhaps it is Chevron, mentioned above",

which is also called in the verse by the name "place" [and similarly "the place where his tent had been at first, between Beit-El and Ai,

to the place of the altar which he had made there at first" ⁴⁰]?

According to the above, this is not a question,

Because the "place" must be

(not only a well-known place,

"already mentioned elsewhere",

but also)

in proximity to Be'er Sheva on the way to Charan

(as understood from that which is stated here "and he arrived",

as above).

Which is specifically Mount Moriah.

One will ask the question:

Perhaps Chevron is closer to Be'er Sheva than Mount Moriah?

One must first clarify the reality. And if the reality is so —

Rashi protects against this in the subsequent explanation

(on the word "and he arrived") —

"the earth jumped for him" ⁴¹. Consequently there is no question why immediately upon leaving Be'er Sheva to go to Charan it was "and he arrived at the place",

at Mount Moriah,

because "the way was shortened for him"].

And based on this, the order in Rashi is also understandable

(that first he explains "and he arrived at the place — Scripture did not mention in which place etc.",

and afterwards the explanation on "and he arrived") —

Because the explanation "in which place" comes in continuation to that which is stated before this "And Jacob went out from Be'er Sheva and went to Charan",

that immediately it was "and he arrived at the place"

(in proximity to Be'er Sheva on the way to Charan).

And it appears to say that the explanation on "and he arrived at the place"

("Scripture did not mention in which place etc.")

is one continuation to the preceding explanation "and went to Charan —

he went out to go to Charan". As discussed many times, Rashi's method is to cite the language of the verse with his explanation in the middle.

I.e., that this is as if it were stated in the verse:

"And Jacob went out from Be'er Sheva, he went out to go to Charan, and he arrived at the place

(the place mentioned elsewhere)

it is Mount Moriah".

The explanation in Rashi on the verse "G-d has gathered my disgrace":

When the five-year-old student of Scripture learns that when Yosef was born to Rachel she said "G-d has gathered my disgrace" —

He asks the question:

True indeed,

Rachel's disgrace

("that I was barren")

is indeed not so great when she gave birth to Yosef —

But how can one say that Rachel's disgrace was completely nullified,

When her sister Leah had six children,

And even the handmaids each had two children,

Unlike her

(Rachel)

who had only one child?!

[And although afterwards Rachel says "May Hashem add for me another son" —

It is stated, however, later].

Therefore Rashi explains,

That "He has gathered my disgrace" does not mean that the disgrace was completely nullified,

But rather "He placed it in a place where it is not seen",

Disgrace still exists

(from the aspect that she had only one child,

when Leah had six and the handmaids had two),

But now it is a disgrace that is "in a place where it is not seen",

hidden by her in the heart,

Unlike others who do not see it.

And simply:

When a woman

(Rachel)

walks in the street without any children,

at the same time when her sister

(Leah)

or a handmaid walk with a child

(or several children) —

This is for her a disgrace that is openly visible,

Because everyone understands that she has no children,

For how is it that a woman walks without a child;

When she walks, however, in the street with even one child —

Then the open disgrace is removed,

Because no one is obligated to know that she does not have more children at home.

And if she does not walk with them in the street —

This is not a question,

Because also Leah

(who had six children)

did not necessarily walk with all six children in the street,

For it could be that among the children there are very young ones

(as was the case with Leah),

Or the child is sleeping at home,

Or he is in cheder,

Or another reason —

One can have a hundred reasons for why the mother walks with only one child,

And from this there is no proof how many children she has:

It could be that she has six children,

It could be that she has twelve children!

And since here it speaks of an unusual matter —

"He has gathered my disgrace,

He placed it in a place where it is not seen" —

Rashi brings on this four proofs,

Among them there are cases that are closer to our case and others that are not so close,

higher or lower than our case etc.

He gave bread and made him wiser still ⁴¹* which of the four have more relevance here and which not.

The explanation of this matter in the Zohar:

In the commentaries on the Zohar

(Zoharei Chamah ⁴²)

It is explained that in the Zohar there are three opinions in the explanation of "House of G-d":

a) "From two sides",

Yovlah

(Binah)

and Gevurah

(Yitzchak),

b) Only Gevurah

(the opinion of Rabbi Elazar),

c) Only Binah

(the opinion of Rashbi).

And it can be said that one said one thing and the other said another, and they do not disagree:

Malchut

("this stone")

receives from "two sides"

(Binah and Gevurah),

and furthermore —

from all the sides

(all the sefirot of Atzilut),

as explained in the matter of "All ⁴³ the rivers flow into the sea" ⁴⁴.

Afterwards, when the influence is drawn down and descends from Malchut into BY"A —

after the tzimtzum and parsa

(Gevurah and judgment) —

It descends mainly into

(Elokim b) Binah

(gevurot of Binah) and

(Elokim b)

Gevurah.

From this it is also understood regarding the matter of "Beit Chabad"

(which is analogous to "Beit Elokim") —

That it is a house that includes everything,

"all the rivers",

and in general it is represented by the three pillars upon which the world stands ⁴⁵ —

a house of Torah, prayer, and acts of kindness,

and also physically —

that "Eshel" is an acronym for eating, drinking, and lodging,

a house where one can eat,

drink, and stay overnight etc.,

as discussed many times.

And this is drawn down and descends also below into the laws of Gevurah

(according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar)

and Binah

(according to the opinion of Rashbi).

And in a manner of the sweetening of the judgments and gevurot ⁴⁵*

(see Or HaChamah there) —

As Rashbi said, "I am able to exempt the entire world from judgment" ⁴⁶.

And one can connect this with the middle Rebbe —

According to the known idea that analogous to the passing of Rashbi on Lag BaOmer is also

(the passing on Yud Shevat, and)

the passing of the middle Rebbe on Yud Kislev,

as is known the saying that since the passing of Rashbi there was no such passing until the passing of the middle Rebbe ⁴⁷

(as was spoken once ⁴⁸,

and since it has already been printed, one will not repeat it).

Spoke here about the preparations for the celebrations and farbrengens in connection with Yud-Tes Kislev. And those who travel before Yud-Tes Kislev —

will receive mashkeh from the secretariat from this farbrengen,

and upon their return to their place —

they will conduct farbrengens on Yud-Tes Kislev,

and speak there about the spreading of the wellsprings outward,

including —

about the expansion

(or establishment)

of a Beit Chabad —

all this is included in the sicha that was reviewed by the Rebbe shlita and published in a separate pamphlet.

And he concluded:]

And may it be His will that the very good resolutions to expand

(or establish anew)

a "Beit Chabad" in every place —

should already bring the reward ⁴⁹ —

the true and complete redemption,

Because the essence of a "Beit Chabad" is the spreading of the wellsprings outward,

And through that which one resolves to establish "Batei Chabad" in every place,

This is considered as the spreading of the wellsprings outward in every place,

Which brings "the master has come, the king Mashiach"

(as in the well-known letter of the Baal Shem Tov ⁵⁰).

And since one already now accepts these resolutions —

Mashiach must surely come immediately now on Shabbat Parshat Vayeitzei 5747 at the time of Rava d'Ravin.

And Mashiach gathers all Jews together,

both from the Land of Israel and from the Diaspora,

And places them all upon "the clouds of heaven" ⁵¹,

And effects upon them "And all your children shall be taught of Hashem, and great shall be the peace of your children" ⁵²,

And with joy and goodness of heart.

[The Rebbe shlita gave a jug of mashkeh to R. Ch.M.A.Ch. shiy"a (secretariat).

And to R. Y. HaKohen K. shiy"a (for his daughter's wedding)].

A lesson in the correction of the opinions from today's lesson of Rambam —

is explicit in the Rambam himself:

At the conclusion and seal of the laws of neighbors⁵³

(which is part of today's lesson)

the Rambam writes: "Anyone who wishes to sell land, and two come, each saying, 'I will buy it for this price,' and neither of them is a border neighbor,

if one is a resident of the city and one is a neighbor of the field, the neighbor,

the resident of the city takes precedence,

a neighbor and a Torah scholar,

the Torah scholar takes precedence, etc.,

a neighbor and a relative, the neighbor takes precedence

[as it is written⁵⁴ "A close neighbor is better than a distant brother,"

as the Gemara brings⁵⁵]

etc."

[and he enumerates several more cases].

Afterwards he continues: "If one preceded and bought, he acquired, and his fellow who was fit to precede him cannot remove him

[by virtue of the law of "bar metzra" which is derived⁵⁶ from "And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of Hashem"⁵⁷. And according to some opinions⁵⁸ the law of "bar metzra" is close to a positive commandment]

since neither of them is a border neighbor, for the Sages did not command this matter,

but rather it is a way of piety and a good soul that does so."

That is to say, that even though in this there is no commandment

(as in bar metzra),

one must conduct himself in the way of piety —

a matter of "to rectify the character traits"

(in addition to the "to rectify the character traits" by virtue of the law in bar metzra —

"You shall do that which is right and good").

We will also dwell on a matter in the revealed aspect of these laws:

In yesterday's lesson⁵⁹ the Rambam writes at the beginning of the laws of bar metzra:

"One who sells his land to another, his fellow who is on the border of his field may give money to the buyer and remove him, etc." Afterwards the Rambam adds:

"Even if the buyer was a Torah scholar and a neighbor and a relative of the seller, and the border neighbor is an ignoramus and distant,

the border neighbor takes precedence and removes the buyer."

One must understand:

When there is even a concern that the border neighbor might cause the seller trouble —

the law of bar metzra does not apply⁶⁰

(i.e., the border neighbor cannot come and remove the buyer).

As the law is regarding a gentile —

"And similarly an idolater, etc., there is no aspect of the law of bar metzra,"

"for the Sages did not institute that the buyer should remove himself to do that which is right and good for the border neighbor when it is harmful to the seller,"

"for he [the buyer] says to him

(the buyer to the border neighbor)

'A lion will drive you away from the border,'"

"and there is no greater right and good than this"⁶¹.

Accordingly, the question arises regarding the aforementioned law: "Even if the buyer was a Torah scholar and a neighbor and a relative of the seller, and the border neighbor is an ignoramus and distant,

the border neighbor takes precedence and removes the buyer":

An ignoramus can indeed be "harmful to the seller,"

as is understood regarding several laws in connection with an ignoramus,

as opposed to a Torah scholar who has many virtues⁶²,

he is easygoing, his speech is pleasant⁶³,

he conducts himself in the right and good way, etc. And especially since the Torah scholar is "a relative" and the ignoramus is "distant."

Now, why is the law that an ignoramus who is a border neighbor can remove a Torah scholar —

how does this accord with the law "for the Sages did not institute that the buyer should remove himself to do that which is right and good for the border neighbor when it is harmful to the seller"?!

One cannot answer that the Torah scholar, for his part

(by virtue of the fact that he conducts himself in the right and good way)

will give up the land to the border neighbor

(or he will not buy it in the first place) —

for that is from the conduct of the Torah scholar,

but the question is:

how can the border neighbor

(an ignoramus)

compel the buyer

(a Torah scholar)

to remove himself from the land?

Give to the wise and he will become wiser.

Now we will sing the Mitteler Rebbe's melody,

and the Alter Rebbe's melody,

and afterwards think about the Torah reading and all good things.

[They sang the melody of the Admur HaEmtza'i. The melody of the Alter Rebbe (the fourth stanza once).

Nie zhuritsy khlaptsy.

Afterwards he commanded to sing "Yibaneh Beis HaMikdash, etc."].

In addition to what was said above —

we wish to mention again regarding making all the preparations for the farbrengens of Yud-Tes Kislev.

And all these resolutions regarding matters of spreading the wellsprings outward —

will further hasten the true and complete redemption,

Ati Mar, D'hu Malka Meshicha.

Afterwards he said:

Those who need to recite the after-blessing,

should make sure to recite the after-blessing.