English translation — שיחת ש"פ וישלח, ח"י כסלו ה'תשמ"ז

The early talks –

were reviewed by the Rebbe shlita,

and published in a separate pamphlet*.

Discourse (in the manner of a talk)

beginning "And Yaakov sent messengers etc."

It is also customary to study a verse from the weekly portion together with Rashi's commentary,

a matter in the notes of the Tatte on the Zohar in our portion,

and a matter in today's lesson of Rambam.

Regarding Rashi, several matters were proposed,

we will dwell on one of them.

In our portion on the verse¹ "And Yaakov traveled to Sukkot and built for himself a house and for his cattle he made sukkot," Rashi quotes the words "and built for himself a house" and explains:

"He stayed there eighteen months: summer, winter, and summer,

sukkot for summer,

a house for winter,

sukkot for summer."

One must understand:

A) It is known the principle of Rashi²,

that "I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse." The question arises here³:

Why does Rashi bring an interpretation from the Sages⁴ that is seemingly entirely not according to the plain meaning of the verse?!

So much so that even the commentators on Rashi,

the Ra'am etc. –

who do not always learn Rashi according to the plain meaning in its purity –

struggle here why Rashi brings an interpretation that is contrary to the plain meaning,

and they remain with a question!

The plain interpretation of the verse is,

that "And Yaakov traveled to Sukkot" and "and built for himself a house" and "and for his cattle he made sukkot" all occurred at one time –

Rashi comes and says that the interpretation is not so,

but rather that these three things were in three separate times,

six months of summer,

six months of winter,

and six months of summer!

B) Furthermore:

What is even difficult in the verse that Rashi finds it necessary to give an interpretation? The interpretation of the verse is simply:

"And Yaakov traveled to Sukkot" –

Yaakov arrived in Sukkot,

"and built for himself a house" –

he built himself a house,

"and for his cattle he made sukkot" –

he made sukkot for his cattle –

in the plainest sense without any questions,

so why does Rashi need to give an interpretation here?!

Also in the very interpretation of Rashi one must understand:

C) If Rashi already brings the exposition on "And Yaakov traveled to Sukkot and built for himself a house and for his cattle he made sukkot"

(that these three cases speak of three separate times) –

the question arises⁵ why does he not also expound the last case in the verse,

where it says further "therefore he called the name of the place Sukkot";

from either side:

if the first three cases have an interpretation,

why does the last case have no interpretation?

D) Since Rashi explains all three cases

("And Yaakov traveled to Sukkot and built for himself a house and for his cattle he made sukkot") –

why does he quote from the verse only the words "and built for himself a house"?

E) On the other hand:

He is only explaining the word "house" –

why does he also quote the words "and built for himself"?

And as will be explained below.

Another matter in Rashi on which we dwelt:

On the verse⁶ "and he touched the socket of his thigh," Rashi seemingly explains only the matter of "socket of his thigh." So why does he quote in this beginning phrase also the word "and he touched"?

Before we come to the matter in the notes on the Zohar and in the lesson of Rambam –

the matter in Rashi from the last Shabbos will be explained:

On the verse "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" –

Rashi explains:

"And he embraced –

when he saw nothing with him he said perhaps he brought gold and it is in his bosom",

"and he kissed him –

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

It was asked:

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

whereas regarding "and he kissed" he also quotes the word "him"?

Someone caught on to a "discovery":

In several editions of Rashi⁹ there is no Rashi commentary at all on the words "and he embraced him"!

Of course,

according to those versions there is no question!

The entire question is according to the version in the printed text before us,

and even if one says that this is not a commentary of Rashi himself, it is nevertheless a commentary that is printed in several Chumashim that were before great Jews and commentators etc.,

and they studied from them,

so it is certainly worthy and upheld etc.!

In the explanation of this –

and he prefaced another question on Rashi:

A child of five who studies Chumash knows

(and sees it himself)

that a kiss can be in several ways:

a kiss on the hand,

a kiss on the cheek

(on the cheek),

a kiss on the mouth. He asks the question:

When the verse states "and he kissed him" without specification –

from where does Rashi know that this specifically means a kiss on the mouth?

On the contrary:

From the fact that it says here "and he kissed him" without specification,

and does not explicitly state "on the mouth"

[as in the verse¹⁰ "let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth"],

it is a proof that it was not necessarily on the mouth.

In the explanation of all this –

and he prefaced the question:

What is difficult in the verse that Rashi needs to give an explanation at all?

And the explanation:

Rashi is troubled: how does Lavan suddenly come to have such affectionate feelings for Yaakov,

that "he ran toward him, embraced him, and kissed him"?!

Therefore Rashi explains,

that Lavan's intention was not his love for Yaakov,

but rather "when he saw nothing with him, he said, 'Perhaps he brought gold coins and they are in his bosom,'"

therefore "he embraced him" in order to be able to feel around and sense the gold coins that he brought in his bosom.

According to this, the question arises: why does it also state "and he kissed him"?

Since there was already "and he embraced him",

and he felt all around,

what does "and he kissed him" add?

This compels Rashi to say,

that "and he kissed him" was in a place that Lavan could not reach through "and he embraced him". Therefore he explains that "and he kissed him" was on the mouth,

"he said, 'Perhaps he brought pearls and they are in his mouth,'"

because if one interprets that this is a kiss on the hand or on the cheek –

this adds nothing regarding "and he embraced him",

because also through "and he embraced him"

(and even without it)

he could also see whether Yaakov had brought something in his hand;

therefore one must say that "and he kissed him" means on the mouth,

in order to see whether he had brought pearls and they are in his mouth,

which he would not have been able to know through "and he embraced him" alone.

Based on this, the change is also understandable: why specifically by "and he kissed" does Rashi also quote the word "him". Because by "and he kissed" the "him" is even more relevant and emphasized –

for this is a kiss in Yaakov's mouth

(in order to see if pearls are found there),

which is more "him"

(in his innerness)

than "and he embraced" in general,

which is only an embrace on the externality of the body,

which does not reach the mouth.

In connection with the matter of building "Beit Chabad" and what has been stirring recently –

there is also a hint to this in our parshah in the aforementioned verse:

"and he built him a house".

And regarding this matter, there is also a note from the father on the Zohar of our parshah¹¹.

In today's lesson of Rambam

(at the beginning of Hilchot Sechirut)

we learn that "four bailees are stated in the Torah and three laws apply to them,

and these are the four bailees:

an unpaid bailee,

and a borrower,

and a paid

(bailee) for hire,

and a renter." And the Rambam precedes and emphasizes "and three laws apply to them" even though he says it in the halachah afterwards:

"and these are the three laws that apply to them

(i.e., a paid bailee or a renter, both have one law)",

and enumerates the laws.

According to the principle of the Rambam¹² that the laws of the Torah were given "to correct opinions and to straighten all deeds" –

one must derive from this a matter in the correction of opinions. And as will be explained below.

Continuing from what was mentioned above, the hint in our parshah regarding the matter of the mission "and Yaakov sent messengers etc. to Esav"¹³,

and regarding the matter of "Beit Chabad" –

"and he built him a house"

Thus the mission and building of the house

(in our parshah)

come in continuation and after the entirety of the mission of our forefather Yaakov going from Be'er Sheva to Charan

(as discussed in the previous parshah),

"and Yaakov left Be'er Sheva and went to Charan"¹⁴,

to fulfill the mission of his father and mother

("and Yaakov listened to his father and his mother and went to Padan Aram"¹⁵),

and more generally –

the mission of the descent of the soul into the body

(which is hinted¹⁶ in "and Yaakov left Be'er Sheva and went to Charan"),

as discussed in the previous farbrengen¹⁷.

And the mission consists of refining "Charan",

"the burning anger of the Omnipresent in the world"¹⁸ –

the refinement of the world,

the refinement of Lavan's sheep,

and the refinement of Lavan's daughters

(Rachel and Leah)

etc.,

and specifically there

(in Charan)

to establish a family,

the house of Yaakov,

"his bed was complete"¹⁹.

And the perfection of the mission itself was after the clarifications in Charan were completed,

and "And Jacob sent messengers etc. to Esau his brother, to the land of Seir, the field of Edom,"

continuing the lights of Tohu from Esau and going to the complete redemption,

but due to a reason this was delayed,

and in the meantime there was "And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and he built for himself a house etc.,"

and afterwards he came to "Beit El,"

as a preparation for the redemption.

It can be said that this matter is also alluded to

(in general)

in the words of Jacob

(at the beginning of Parshat Vayetzei),

immediately upon leaving Beersheba on the way to Charan –

"And I return in peace to my father's house etc., and this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be the house of God."22 And this matter was fulfilled "When he returned

(Jacob)

from Padan Aram, when He said to him, 'Arise, go up to Beit El, what is said there21 and Jacob set up a pillar etc., and he poured a libation upon it'23,

and he called the place God, Beit El."24

It will be understood according to the words of the Zohar on this verse,

as discussed in the previous farbrengen:

In the Zohar, he asks why it says "house of Elokim" and not "house of Havayah." And he explains:

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

from the side of Yovela

(Binah)

which is Elokim Chaim,

and from the side of Yitzchak

(Gevurah)

Elokim." And afterwards the Zohar brings two opinions:

The opinion of Rabbi Elazar –

that this refers to "the side of harsh judgment"

(Gevurah),

and the opinion of Rashbi –

that this refers to "the city of the great King"

(Binah).

And the father explains,

that "house of Elokim can be interpreted regarding two sides,

either on Yovela Binah or on Yitzchak the attribute of Gevurah,

and not on both of them together etc."

And a question was asked about this:

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

(Gevurah or Binah),

"and not on both of them together" –

when it concerns our forefather Jacob,

"the chosen among the forefathers,"

who was at the ultimate perfection,

"his bed was perfect"?

And especially since this concerns his prayer "And I return in peace to my father's house etc." –

as Chassidus explains that this was for the ultimate perfection

(for the future to come)!

And how does it also accord with what was discussed, that a "house

(Chabad)

" includes within itself all matters,

not only one matter?

It was explained,

based on the interpretation of the commentators,

that in the Zohar there are three opinions,

"two sides,"

Gevurah

(the opinion of R"a),

and Binah

(the opinion of R"sh) –

and one master says one thing and the other master says another thing, and they do not disagree:

First of all, Malchut

("this stone")

receives from "two sides,"

and "two sides" means (here)

not only two

(and not more),

but all the sides

(as we find in many places),

and as explained in many places that Malchut receives from all the Sefirot of Atzilut.

Afterwards, however, the drawing down from Malchut into BY"A,

and regarding this –

the drawing down is connected primarily with Gevurah

(the opinion of R"a),

and afterwards with Binah

(the opinion of R"sh).

And based on this, the order in the Zohar was explained –

first R"a and then R"sh,

even though R"a was the son of R"sh

(a generation after R"sh) –

because regarding the drawing down from Malchut into BY"A,

Gevurah comes first and then Binah.

A great commotion was made,

how does it accord with "the simple meaning of the verse"?

The explanation in this is –

how it accords with the simple meaning of the verses:

First of all, there was "And Jacob left Beersheba,"

with all the sides

(and they (all the sides) are included in "two sides,"

as above),

as Rashi explains at the beginning of Parshat Vayetzei –

"He left from there; his splendor departed, his radiance departed, his beauty departed"

(all the sides) –

like the reception of Malchut from all the sides.

Afterwards, however, the intention is that he should arrive in Charan

(the descent of Malchut into the worlds of BY"A),

and there perform his service to clarify "Charan"

(the worlds of BY"A).

And then the order is –

first Gevurah,

afterwards Binah.

And simply:

When one needs to clarify a lower place,

"Charan,"

"the burning anger of the world" –

one must first

(at the beginning of the service)

use the attribute of Gevurah,

afterwards there can be a drawing down of Chessed

(until the drawing down of Binah,

as follows),

"Turn away from evil and

(afterwards)

do good,"

"The left hand pushes away and

(afterwards)

the right hand draws near."

As the order was immediately at the beginning of Jacob's service upon arriving in Charan, encountering the shepherds,

and seeing that "behold, there was a well in the field, and behold, there were three flocks of sheep lying there" –

first and foremost, Jacob rebuked them

(depart from evil,

gevurah),

"behold, it is still great day, it is not time to gather the cattle; water the sheep and go and graze"

("because he saw them lying, he thought that they wanted to gather the cattle home and would no longer graze,

he said to them, behold, it is still great day,

meaning, if you are hired workers, you have not completed the day's work, etc.").

And afterwards Jacob continued the attribute of kindness

(do good) –

"and he rolled the stone from the mouth of the well and watered the sheep of Laban, his mother's brother",

until the drawing down of binah –

"and he watered the sheep",

all the sheep –

and binah is the source

(the attributes)

for all drawings down and influences.

[And afterwards there was also the service of Jacob with Rachel,

"and Jacob kissed Rachel and lifted his voice and wept" –

as the matter is explained in Tanya 41* –

but this is a separate matter and service like the service of refining the evil in Charan (and it is worth noting that also the service with Rachel began with "and he wept").]

And in a more general way –

the service with Laban:

first and foremost, Jacob had to toil in his service with Laban,

until "I was consumed by drought by day and frost by night, and my sleep fled from my eyes" –

the harshest gevurot in their simple meaning;

and only afterwards was the drawing down of kindness,

the building of the house of Jacob and their return to the land of Israel,

until "and he built him a house",

and arrived at "Beit El" –

the aspect of binah.

The explanation in Rashi on the verse "and he built him a house":

When one learns the words "and he built him a house" –

the question arises:

what is it teaching us?

Why does the verse need to say this –

it is a simple matter

(as a five-year-old studying Scripture understands)

that when one arrives in a place, one needs to have a house there,

and especially in winter.

That is why it is not written in the Torah that Abraham built a house when he was in Beersheba for twenty-five years –

because what would it teach us,

it is a simple matter.

If it were not a simple matter,

and the verse needed to say it –

the verse would have had to say it first and foremost regarding Abraham our father, who lived in Beersheba for twenty-five years,

much more time than Jacob's six months in Succoth. But from this very fact it is proven,

that it indeed does not need to be told. So the question arises:

why does the verse tell it here?

This compels Rashi to explain,

that "and he built him a house" comes to teach a unique lesson –

(not merely that Jacob built a "house",

for what would it teach us, rather)

that this comes to bring out the time when one must arrive at a "house" –

"a winter house",

the six months of winter.

And from this

("and he built him a house")

is a proof,

that the verse comes to teach that "he stayed there eighteen months: summer, winter, and summer,

Succoth summer,

house winter,

Succoth summer".

Therefore Rashi quotes all these words "and he built him a house",

and not the other words of the verse,

because specifically these three words,

which are seemingly superfluous,

compel the explanation.

One must still understand:

why does the verse need to come to teach

(by writing "and he built him a house")

that "he stayed there eighteen months" –

what is the practical difference?

There are commentators who wish to say,

that with this the verse comes to inform the calculation of the twenty-two years that Jacob did not fulfill honoring father and mother. Corresponding to them were the twenty-two years that Joseph was separated from Jacob. And Rashi explains further in Parshat Vayeishev,

"twenty-two years corresponding to twenty-two years that Jacob did not fulfill honoring father and mother,

twenty years in the house of Laban and two years on the road on his return from the house of Laban,

a year and a half in Succoth,

and six months in Beit El, etc.".

It is not plausible, however, to say that the verse here comes to inform a matter that is written later –

because what relevance does it have here,

it is relevant when one comes to that verse.

And especially since there are versions where the entire Rashi

(in Parshat Vayeishev)

is absent.

Rather, the explanation of this is understood from the continuation of the verses:

In the continuation of the verses it is written that "and Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land".

And Rashi explains:

"the daughter of Leah –

and not the daughter of Jacob,

but rather because of her going out she is called the daughter of Leah, for she too was a goer-out, as it is written, 'and Leah went out to meet him'".

It is however plausible to say,

that even though Dinah was a "goer-out"

(like Leah) –

this was however not in a manner of the opposite of modesty entirely,

for she was after all Dinah the daughter of Jacob. And furthermore, the main point:

also the going out of Leah was not in a manner of the opposite of modesty.

That which is cautioned according to that which the verse writes before this "and he built him a house" which comes to teach that "he stayed there eighteen months":

If "and Dinah went out" would have been immediately the first day when they arrived there –

it would prove a matter of the opposite of modesty to the utmost, which is entirely not fitting and relevant to Dinah;

since however that "he stayed there eighteen months",

and only then

(after the eighteen months)

was "and Dinah went out",

after she had become accustomed to the people there and they had become accustomed to her,

it is more understandable how such a thing comes to Dinah the daughter of Jacob.

And based on this another thing is understood:

If Dinah is a "goer-out" she should have gone out immediately "to see the daughters of the land",

if not –

how does she go out after eighteen months?

[As a five-year-old sees by his sister or niece (a girl) –

that whichever way you look at it:

if she has a tendency to go seek friends –

she goes out immediately;

and if not –

she does not go out even after eighteen months!].

Rather the explanation in this is,

that being Dinah the daughter of Jacob,

it was not relevant to go out immediately upon arriving at a new place;

but after that "he stayed there eighteen months",

and she became accustomed to the inhabitants of the place and they to her –

this was relevant by her.

In continuation of the above regarding "and he built him a house" and the building of a "Chabad house" –

this is the place to again arouse regarding the preparations to make farbrengens on the nineteenth of Kislev in every place,

and to arouse especially regarding the study of Torah,

and with the precedence of the service of prayer,

as our sages of blessed memory said "my prayer that it be near my bed"50 –

which Torah and prayer are both a matter of "house"51,

"houses of priesthood" and "houses of royalty".

And also regarding the matter of establishing Chabad houses in every place.

And along these lines –

also regarding the preparations for "Operation Chanukah". And with special emphasis in this year –

when there are two Shabbats of Chanukah,

in addition to that which the year began with a Shabbat,

and the entire year is a Shabbat-like one

(a Sabbatical year,

"a Shabbat to the Lord").

And in connection with this –

there are those who have provided drink in connection with a new "Chabad house",

or in connection with making new farbrengens –

which is also similar to establishing a "new house",

because a farbrengen is a gathering and unity of many many of Israel

[together with the Above –

and as is known the "note which descended from heaven" that that which a Chassidic farbrengen can accomplish even the angel Michael cannot accomplish53],

in order that through this there should be "house of Israel bless the Lord"54,

on the matter of establishing a house which is a gathering of many matters,

stones etc.

Let those who have provided drink now go and themselves say "L'chaim",

and afterwards announce and invite those assembled here to their gatherings.

And may it be His will that there should be words that come from the heart,

which specifically they enter into the heart and accomplish their effect,

and the main thing –

through showing a living example,

that one becomes oneself a living emissary,

and with joy and with a good heart,

and in a manner of increasing and going and light.

[His Holy Honor the Rebbe Shlita gave a jug of drink to the honorable R. M.M. Shiyita.

The honorable R. Sh.Tz. Shiyita.

The honorable R. Sh.D. Shiyita.

The honorable R. Y.Tz. H. Shiyita.

After all the announcements –

His Holy Honor the Rebbe Shlita began to play "and I will empty out for you a blessing".

Afterwards he gave a jug of drink to the honorable R. M.Y.P. Shiyita].

In today's lesson of Rambam –

we will first of all stop on a question according to the revealed aspect of Torah:

In this lesson, the Rambam writes

(at the beginning of chapter 2 of the Laws of Hiring)

"The three laws stated in the Torah regarding the four guardians apply only to movable property of a Jew, etc., as it is said: 'silver or vessels and any animal'; land is excluded, and slaves are excluded, etc., and documents are excluded, etc., and consecrated property is excluded, etc.,

From here the Sages said: For slaves, documents, land, and consecrated property, an unpaid guardian is not required to take an oath, etc." Afterwards, the Rambam adds:

"And the Sages instituted that an oath is taken regarding consecrated property, a guardian's oath similar to that of Torah law, so that consecrated property should not be treated lightly."

A general question arises

(not specifically regarding this law, but regarding several similar laws):

We find in many places that the Torah itself states a law in order that consecrated items should not be treated lightly. For example:

The prohibition of "A non-priest shall not eat, for they are holy –

From here we learn a warning for a non-priest who eats holy of holies, that the matter gives a reason for the matter because they are holy." And so forth.

From this we see that the Torah itself guards against the matter of treating consecrated items lightly.

Consequently, the question becomes:

Since in certain cases the Torah itself guarded against treating consecrated items lightly,

and in other cases the Torah did not guard against it

(as in our case –

of an oath regarding consecrated property) –

this is a proof that in the other cases

(where the Torah does not guard against it),

it is not necessary to guard against it;

so how can the Sages institute that even in such a case one must guard against treating consecrated items lightly

(by means of the oath,

and the like).

Even if we say that this is not an enactment of the Sages,

but rather a rabbinic law –

the same question remains.

The explanation of this is understood according to what is explained in Chassidus regarding the reason why most of the decrees and enactments, etc., came about in the time of the Second Temple and thereafter –

because of the decline of the generations and the diminution of the hearts:

When they stood on a higher level,

they did not need to come to certain fences and precautions to guard that one should observe all the commandments;

but when there was a decline,

and in the language of our Sages of blessed memory –

"If the earlier ones were like angels, we are like human beings,

and if the earlier ones were like human beings, we are like, etc.,"

and even lower than that –

the Sages instituted decrees and fences

("Make a fence for the Torah"),

in order to guard various matters.

And regarding our matter –

regarding the precaution not to treat consecrated items lightly:

In certain cases the Torah did not need to guard against the matter of treating consecrated items lightly;

but when there was a decline,

then one must come to the enactment of the Sages not to treat consecrated items lightly,

a precaution which one did not need to come to in the generations before this.

The explanation of the four guardians –

in the rectification of the attributes and the service of man

(at least briefly):

In the mission that the Almighty gave to every Jew, sending him down as a soul in a body into this world,

(and in general -)

in order to make peace in the world through Torah and commandments

(which were given to make peace in the world) –

there are, in general, four modes in the relationship that can exist between a Jew

(the emissary)

and the world

(the place of his mission),

and from one extreme to the other:

A) "The borrower":

Since the entire world was created "for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel,"

and "I was created to serve my Maker,"

the entire existence of a Jew is to fulfill the mission of the Holy One, blessed be He,

he does everything for the Almighty –

he can be a claimant with force and demand that everything is coming to him

(like a "borrower,"

who borrows everything for free),

full reward,

children, life, and ample sustenance. And this is a justified claim –

because a Jew is a child of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,

and as the Mishnah says in Bava Metzia at the beginning of the chapter "The One Who Hires Workers,"

that "even if you do for them like the feast of Solomon in his time, you have not fulfilled your obligation to them,

for they are children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

[This does not mean that the "borrower" can do with the world whatever he wants:

Certainly he is liable for negligence, damage, and unavoidable accident,

and even for a great unavoidable accident.]

That is, a "borrower" indicates a level in service that is not for its own sake,

but only in order to receive a reward,

and a claimant with force –

that full reward is coming to him.

And in the order of service, it is said that "a person should always engage in Torah and commandments not for their own sake,

for from not for their own sake, he comes to for their own sake."

B) "An unpaid guardian":

An "unpaid guardian" is exactly at the opposite extreme from a "borrower":

He performs the service purely for its own sake,

entirely not for the sake of receiving a reward,

"not because of any thing in the world, etc."

(as the Rambam writes in chapter ten of the Laws of Repentance),

he feels that his entire existence is not for himself,

but rather because he is a guardian of the property of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and he acts for free,

without receiving reward.

Afterwards, there are the other two types

("paid guardian" and "renter")

which "both have the same law":

Between the two opposite extremes of "the borrower"

(service not for its own sake)

and "unpaid guardian"

(service for its own sake) –

there are many levels and modes in service. And in general, they divide into two types,

but their law is one,

because in the mission of a Jew in the world,

there are, as mentioned,

two things:

him and the world,

and correspondingly by a guardian:

the guardian and the object being guarded. Consequently, there are in general two modes in his relationship to his service of guarding,

1) that the main thing for him is the object being guarded,

and not himself,

the guardian,

2) that the main thing is the guardian,

and not so much the object being guarded.

For this is the difference between a "paid guardian" and a "renter":

c) "Paid guardian" –

the meaning is,

that the main thing for him is the object being guarded,

and not so much himself. And particularly according to the explanation of the Rogatchover,

that a paid guardian obligates himself to the object being guarded.

d) "Renter" is the opposite:

the main point is he himself,

and as a secondary matter, there is also the thing that he hired.

And although these are two levels,

nevertheless in general their law is one –

because they are both in the same category,

which comes between service not for its own sake

("the borrower")

and service for its own sake

("unpaid guardian"),

therefore "both have the same law",

only in detail they divide into two

("four guardians")

whether the main thing is the guardian or the main thing is the object being guarded.

And since this is a fundamental and important matter –

therefore the Rambam emphasizes

(and repeats it)

two times,

that "four guardians are stated in the Torah and they have three laws."

And from the four general modes in the service of God in spirituality between a Jew and the Above,

with all their details –

are derived

(were derived from them)

the four guardians in the physicality of the world,

between a person and his fellow,

and their detailed laws.

And may it be His will that one should not need to repeat that all these matters must come down "to the plain of the field"73.

And primarily –

in the matters that are dependent on time:

Farbrengens in connection with the 19th of Kislev in every place.

And the preparations for "Operation Chanukah",

to ensure that every Jew in every place whatsoever should light the Chanukah candles,

and fulfill the other commandments of Chanukah. And all this with extra emphasis and with a greater storm consistently this year –

when there are two Shabbats of Chanukah,

as mentioned above.

And may it be His will that even before Chanukah and even before the 19th of Kislev –

the true and complete redemption should come through our righteous Mashiach,

and together with our righteous Mashiach we will celebrate the farbrengen of the 19th of Kislev here,

and then immediately go –

"with the clouds of heaven" –

to our holy land,

"a land which the Lord your God cares for; the eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year",

and there celebrate Chanukah,

and it will be "I show you the lights of Zion",

a menorah of seven lights,

together with the menorah of Chanukah of eight lights,

which will be lit in the third Holy Temple "in Your holy courts",

until also the completeness of ten,

"upon the ten-stringed instrument",

a harp of ten strings

(more than the harp of seven strings and of eight strings).

And afterwards, one will ascend in holiness into the redemption itself,

and there will be an even higher completeness in "may your springs spread forth outward" –

as the ruling of the Rambam "the entire occupation of the world will be only to know God, etc.,

as it is said: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea",

that is, that even in the "outward"

("the entire occupation of the world")

the "springs" will be spread,

"the knowledge of God",

and speedily, in our very own time.

His Holiness, our Master, Teacher, and Rebbe, may he live for many good days, Amen, instructed the holy students, may they live, to play "May it be Your will, etc., that the Holy Temple be built, etc.".

Afterwards, he said:

Those who need to recite an after-blessing,

will certainly recite an after-blessing.

Addenda

A) In the first talk,

In connection with the matter that the supernal unifications of every Shabbat and Yom Tov draw down and reveal in every place according to its appropriate time –

he added:

And although this is a matter of without limit –

it becomes clothed in a measurement of time. And measurement does not necessarily mean limitation;

And although this is a matter of without limit –

it becomes clothed in a measurement of time. And measurement does not necessarily mean limitation;

"Measurement" and "limitation" are two separate things:

There can be "measurement" without "limitation."

For example –

as the Gemara says,

that "a thousand thousands minister to Him, one great legion,

and His legions are without number."

[It is indeed known the question:

How can limited things (legions) constitute without limit (without number).

(And elsewhere it is discussed) –

But so it is explicit in the Gemara].

B) In the second talk,

in connection with the study of Parshat Vayishlach with young children – he said:

And it is known the emphasis of our Nesi'im that one should teach Torah to children according to the truth,

and it is also known the caution in this,

as is understood from Sefer Chassidim. Even when it concerns a little girl of two years,

and a little boy of three years.

C) Before the maamar he said:

After the above discussion –

one must remove a matter that can confuse others and that confuses me:

There can still be the claim that "It is revealed and known before You that our will is to do Your will,

and who prevents? The leaven in the dough." What should one do if one has an evil inclination.

For this there is the simple advice in the Mishnah –

"Make for yourself a rav":

Make for yourself a rav,

and tell him all the details,

and also about your "leaven in the dough,"

and follow what he tells you –

it will certainly remove most of the questions and notes that people write to me,

that one wants to do,

but what should one do or where should one go,

one wants to learn,

but what should one do if one is not diligent etc. etc.

One can forestall a multitude of questions –

through that there will be "Make for yourself a rav." And the matter depends only on will –

It only needs to be "Make for yourself a rav,"

"Make" from the term of coercion,

and following what he tells, one will see how this will help.

End of the parenthetical maamar.