English translation — שיחת ש"פ משפטים, מבה"ח וער"ח אדר, פ' שקלים, ה'תשמ"ז.

First sicha –

Reviewed by the Rebbe, may he live for many good years,

and will be printed in a separate pamphlet *.

Here was discussed about the neighborhood and its rabbis, may they live for many good years –

will be printed, with Hashem's help, separately.

Discourse (similar to a sicha)

Beginning with the verse "When you take the sum of the children of Israel etc."

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

a matter from the notes of my father on the Zohar of our portion,

and a matter from today's lesson of Rambam

(according to the division of three chapters per day),

And especially since we are now already in the fourth cycle of studying Rambam,

which cycle is a "new structure" that stands upon the foundation and chazakah of the three cycles before it

(three times constitutes a chazakah¹),

consequently it is understood that the study now is with more understanding and with more inwardness etc.,

because this comes after having studied the entire book three times, which constitutes a chazakah.

Regarding Rashi –

we will dwell on several matters that were raised in the "kuntreisim",

and especially –

matters that have a connection between them.

a) We focused on the verse² "And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins",

and asked:

Why did Rashi not explain for a five-year-old studying Scripture the meaning of "basins"?

And especially since Ibn Ezra does explain it,

and his language is:

"Round vessels,

like the basin of the moon³

(like the roundness of the moon),

and in Arabic 'agan'." So if Ibn Ezra found it necessary to explain it,

should Rashi,

who teaches the plain meaning of Scripture to a five-year-old studying Scripture,

certainly have needed to explain it?

b) On the verse⁴ "And Hashem said to Moses: Come up to Me to the mountain and be there", Rashi focuses on the words "Come up to Me to the mountain and be there" and explains:

"Forty days".

We asked:

¹) What is lacking in the explanation of the verse and what is the necessity that Rashi needs to say an explanation here at all? ²) What does the explanation "forty days" add here? And especially since a few verses later it is stated explicitly in the verse⁵ "And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights". ³) A "strong difficulty" on Rashi

(and on the questioners –

why they did not focus on this,

even though this is a regular difficulty):

"Forty days" is an explanation only for "and be there",

why does Rashi also quote the words "Come up to Me to the mountain"?

c) On the verse⁶ "If you lend money to My people",

Rashi explains:

"Rabbi Yishmael says: Every 'if' in the Torah is optional except for three, and this is one of them."

We need to understand:

Rashi already explained thus earlier at the end of Parshat Yitro on the verse⁷ "And if you make for Me an altar of stones" –

so why does he need to repeat it here again? And why does he also repeat it a third time where it says "if",

"And if you bring a meal-offering of first-fruits"⁸?

And as will be explained below.

In the notes of my father on the Zohar in our portion, there are two notes. In the first note he focuses on what is stated in the Zohar⁹ "And when this soul departs from this world, pure, clean, choice etc." And my father explains¹⁰:

"The three expressions can be said corresponding to nefesh, ruach, neshamah,

also corresponding to thought, speech and action,

also corresponding to the three aspects in the vessels,

outer, middle and inner etc."

In the second note he focuses on the Zohar that speaks about Nebuchadnezzar:

"The food of that wicked one was meat in milk and cheese with meat, besides other foods, and this was set before him at his table every day." And my father explains how the matter is in the sefirot:

"Milk and cheese are aspects of chasadim and meat is an aspect of gevurot and it is forbidden to eat them together,

for it is forbidden to mix them together etc.,

and behold, that wicked one would mix together the foods, meaning he would mix the food of chasadim and the food of gevurot together etc.,

also it can be explained that it is the opposite side, that they exchanged their places of holiness,

the yeast of gevurah in the vessel of chesed in the first paragraph of the Shema, corresponding to this that wicked one ate meat, the light of gevurah in milk, the vessel of chesed etc."

A general question arises here,

which is a question regarding many midrashim of our Sages and explanations in the manner of Chassidus etc.

(as was discussed once briefly):

If the Zohar wants to say here

(as my father explains)

that the matter of a soul "departing from this world" is connected with nefesh, ruach, neshamah or thought, speech and action etc. –

should the Zohar have written it explicitly,

and not write "pure, clean, choice" and we should need to come to explanations of the commentators of the Zohar that this means nefesh, ruach, neshamah,

or thought, speech and action etc.?

And similarly regarding the second matter in the Zohar:

If the Zohar wants to say that Nebuchadnezzar mixed chasadim with gevurot –

why is it not stated explicitly in the Zohar,

instead of writing that he mixed meat in milk,

and we need to come to commentators that this means chasadim and gevurot?

And similarly, the same question applies to many explanations in Midrash and Chassidus etc. on verses and matters in the Torah:

If the explanation of the verse is as the exposition in the Midrash –

why is it not stated explicitly,

and not in a hint,

and we should not need to come to the Midrash and the like?

And as will be explained below.

In the Rambam lessons we are studying today the Laws of Repentance¹¹. And as will be explained below several matters in today's lesson,

also a study "to correct the opinions and to straighten all deeds"¹².

Now we will allow time for those who wish,

so that they can contemplate the aforementioned matters and perhaps they will find an explanation.

And in the meantime we will move on and continue what was discussed before the discourse that we heard from our Nesi'im:

We discussed the matter of the half-shekel,

which atones for the sin of the golden calf,

because the half-shekel brought about unity among Jews,

"The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less",

until –

that every Jew gives only a "half",

which emphasizes even more the unity among Jews,

that in order to have a "full shekel" one needs to come to another Jew,

to the extent that "he does not give it

(the half-shekel)

in many times, today a little and tomorrow a little, but gives it all at once in one time",

as above¹³.

And through

(the unity of Jews through the giving of)

the half-shekel they made the sockets of the Mishkan,

the foundation of the Mishkan,

and afterwards they purchased with it the communal offerings of the Mishkan and the Beit HaMikdash.

Torah and mitzvot are eternal¹⁴,

in every time and in every place.

As is known the explanation¹⁵ of "You shall be wholehearted with Hashem your G-d"¹⁶,

that a Jew must be "wholehearted" with his 248 limbs and 365 sinews which correspond to the 248 positive commandments¹⁷ and 365 negative commandments¹⁸.

Consequently, one cannot say,

that there should be a time and place where a Jew lacks a mitzvah,

because then he lacks one of his limbs or sinews, G-d forbid –

and according to the Torah, the body of a Jew must be "wholehearted",

in perfection,

to the extent that there is a command in the Torah "And you shall greatly guard your souls"¹⁹,

and the law is that "a person has no authority over his body at all"

(as the Alter Rebbe rules²⁰)

because his body is "the property of the Holy One, blessed be He"²¹. And based on this it is understood simply –

even for a son of Noach –

that he cannot claim,

since this is his body –

"Who can say to him, What do you do?" Because it is explicitly not his body,

but rather "the property of the Holy One, blessed be He",

he has no right to damage the property of the Most High,

but on the contrary –

it must be "And you shall greatly guard your souls",

furthermore in all four categories of the four guardians –

about which our portion speaks –

as explained in the Shelah²²,

brought in the weekly compilation²³,

how the four guardians exist in the soul of man and in the service of Hashem etc.,

and everyone can look into it himself,

and the letters make wise.

All the more so when it comes to the mitzvah of building the Beit HaMikdash,

"And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst"²⁴,

which is a general and fundamental command

(which includes the Mishkan,

the First Temple,

the Second and Third²⁵),

and in it are included most of the mitzvot,

as explained in the books that most mitzvot are connected with the Beit HaMikdash and with the time when the Beit HaMikdash stood,

including also the mitzvah of the half-shekel,

which was brought for the sockets of the Mishkan,

and afterwards –

for the communal offerings in the Mikdash.

Therefore one cannot say,

that all these mitzvot connected with the Beit HaMikdash are not present today

(after the destruction of the Temple) –

because a cry of protest arises:

How can a Jew lack so many limbs and sinews

(which correspond to the many mitzvot connected with the Beit HaMikdash)²⁶?!

We must say,

that even after the Beit HaMikdash

(physical)

was destroyed,

the Most High gave Jews the ability to fulfill

(a semblance of)

the mitzvah of building the Mikdash,

by building a "miniature Sanctuary",

and the mitzvah of the half-shekel,

and all these mitzvot connected with the Beit HaMikdash.

As this is hinted in the Most High's command –

"And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst"²⁴,

according to the emphasis of our Sages²⁷,

that "it does not say 'in its midst' but 'in their midst',

within each and every one".

And so too regarding the various mitzvot in the Beit HaMikdash –

we now have the ability to fulfill them through various matters,

which are a remembrance of the Mikdash

(like other mitzvot which are a "remembrance of the work of creation"²⁸ and the like),

or even more –

a real semblance of how they were fulfilled in the Beit HaMikdash

(as explained in the books how the Beit HaMikdash is reflected in the soul of man²⁹,

and in the service of Hashem in the three lower worlds in every place and every time).

And in general –

as explained in letters³⁰ at length –

in the three pillars upon which the world stands³¹:

Torah,

service and acts of kindness:

Torah –

is emphasized in that the place of the Sanhedrin

(the source of Torah)

was in the Chamber of Hewn Stone³² "near the altar"³³. And also in the first command³⁴ of "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary":

"And they shall make³⁵ an ark etc. and you shall put into the ark the testimony

(the Torah³⁶)" –

in the Holy of Holies of the Mishkan and Mikdash.

Service –

"My house shall be called a house of prayer"³⁷,

and "this is the gate of heaven"³⁸,

all prayers are directed and ascend through the Beit HaMikdash

(and the Holy of Holies)³⁹;

and "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" in general is, after all,

that it should be a "house for Hashem, prepared to offer in it the sacrifices"⁴⁰,

and in this time –

through prayers which were instituted in place of the sacrifices *⁴⁰.

Acts of kindness –

as the specific command immediately after "And they shall make an ark"

(and the details):

"And you shall make a table...

and you shall put on the table showbread"⁴¹,

for the Beit HaMikdash was the place from which the Most High would bestow⁴² all His kindnesses to the world in general⁴³ and to Jews in particular.

And since the service of "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" is eternal also now –

the "miniature Sanctuary" of every Jewish home must embody in itself the aforementioned three pillars:

Torah:

A home in which Torah is magnified⁴⁴,

a house where one studies Torah regularly and in a manner of "magnifying",

with greatness in quantity and quality.

Prayer:

A home in which prayer is magnified⁴⁴,

the prayers and blessings that are recited in the home

(before and after going to pray with a congregation in the synagogue).

Acts of kindness:

A home where charity is given,

and where hospitality is practiced,

acts of kindness with one's body and money to individuals and to the community.

Therefore now is an appropriate time to again turn with the proposal and double request to every Jew,

"from youth to elder, infants and women"⁴⁵ –

that each and every one should make of his own home,

room,

bed,

small table,

four cubits etc. –

a "miniature Sanctuary",

a house of Torah,

prayer and acts of kindness,

where he or she studies a matter in Torah every day,

and prays prayers and blessings,

and gives charity.

As explained in detail in the letters –

at length in the general, comprehensive letter,

and briefly –

in a separate letter to the children,

because regarding children there is a special emphasis in the proposal,

due to the obligation of education,

that the general service in the time of exile

(also of adults)

is a matter of "education" and "indications" towards the service above⁴⁶,

but this is not like the obligation in halachah regarding the mitzvah of educating children,

therefore a separate letter was written to them

(but briefly –

because it comes as a continuation of the general letter).

And the request is also especially directed to parents,

male and female educators,

male and female guides,

and leaders of educational institutions wherever they are –

that they should endeavor that to every Jewish child,

boy or girl,

the content of this letter should reach,

that he or she should make of his or her own room a "miniature Sanctuary",

as discussed earlier.

Regarding adults –

one must come to a request and proposal,

but regarding children –

one can demand this of them as an obligation,

due to the matter of education,

"Educate the youth according to his way, even when he grows old he will not depart from it"⁴⁷.

In order to add to this strengthening and vitality –

it was also proposed –

that every child should have his own siddur

(prayer book),

his own Chumash

(or another book of Torah), and

(to distinguish)

his own charity box.

Of course,

this proposal is not only for children,

but also for adults,

that one should have his own siddur,

and his own charity box,

and his own books,

until a house full of books,

so that one uses the books to study in them,

until the entire house becomes filled with

(the content of)

the books.

As one sees simply,

that when a child or an adult has his own siddur,

Chumash and charity box –

it gives him,

desire and vitality to actually use them.

And especially when one also writes

(on the page that comes before the beginning of the siddur,

or book)

"The earth and its fullness belong to Hashem"⁴⁸,

and his name,

according to Jewish custom⁴⁹,

and if possible –

also on the charity box.

The benefit in this is simply understood:

In addition to the fact that this itself is a matter of education,

that one roots in the child

(or adult),

that his name

(even if he does not yet write his Jewish name)

and his entire existence is found "under" the ownership of the Most High –

"The earth and its fullness belong to Hashem";

and in addition to this –

that this can also arouse one who does not yet write his Jewish name,

that he should find out and write the name –

which also relates to the redemption,

as is known that the redemption from Egypt came also in the merit of that "they did not change their names"⁵⁰ –

It also has

within it the benefit,

that this will add to his using the siddur,

book or charity box –

because his name is written on it openly and everyone can see it,

consequently he will be ashamed before a friend who will come to his home and see that here lies a siddur,

a book,

a Gemara,

a Tanya

(and the like),

and it is noticeable on the book that it is used very little,

and sometimes it may be –

that on the book one does not even see an impression of its use,

as if he has never used it,

or only when reminded,

once a week and the like –

the great shame is understandable,

that despite the fact that the Alter Rebbe wrote the book Tanya,

and invested himself in it

(as per the saying of our Sages, of blessed memory⁵¹ "I wrote my soul and gave it"),

and wrote it with the intention that one should learn in it –

one sees no impression on his Tanya that he ever looked into it.

Or in his charity box one does not see that there is a change in how much money is found there,

and the like –

And would that your fear of Heaven be like your fear of flesh and blood⁵².

This is in addition to the "fear of flesh and blood" that he has from the fact that he knows that in the books of the institutions they record the amount of charity that each one gives there –

everyone can look there and see how much so-and-so son of so-and-so gave. That he bought the book etc. is a store –

knowing that in the store there are books where his name is recorded that he bought such and such a book.

And although this is an act of shelo lishmah (not for its own sake) –

however, the Rambam rules⁵³

[in the measure of this Motzaei Shabbat,

Rosh Chodesh Adar] –

that "a person should always engage in Torah even shelo lishmah, for from shelo lishmah one comes to lishmah,

therefore when teaching minors etc."

[And it is noteworthy that the Alter Rebbe in his Hilchos Talmud Torah brings twice⁵⁴ the law regarding a student who is not proper –

and it requires examination into the reason for this,

and I have not yet found an explanation for this,

as the question on the matter has already been noted. And perhaps another will find an explanation for it,

and print it in one of the "Kovtzim",

or send me the answer directly].

May it be His will,

that the above-mentioned matter be brought down into actual deed,

and in this they will certainly be successful.

As has been seen until now,

that those who have done this,

have succeeded more than they expected,

and so it will be from now and onward,

and if one has a doubt –

it is "test Me please with this"⁵⁵,

let them try,

and they will lose nothing by it.

And in continuation of this –

there are those who have provided drink for various occasions,

the completion of the book of the Rambam,

or completions of other books of Torah,

or the establishment of Chabad Houses –

general or specific,

and the like.

Let them now go up and say "L'Chaim",

and then include those assembled here –

by announcing the time and place and inviting those assembled,

And then distribute a portion of the drink here,

"great is drinking that brings close"⁵⁶,

and the rest at the continuation –

at the occasions.

And the main thing –

that this should hasten even more the true and complete redemption through Mashiach our righteousness,

and we will all go together to our holy land,

"a land which... the eyes of Hashem your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year"⁵⁷,

and our very own mountain.

[His Holy Presence, the Rebbe, shlita, gave jugs of drink to several people. And at the end –

he gave a jug of drink to R. S.G. shlita for the Melaveh Malkah of the Gemach Shomrei Shabbos. And he said to him:

Put on a shtreimel. And as usual every year to say a word of Torah or a story –

and the aforementioned told the story about the tzaddik, our teacher Rabbi Nachum of Chernobyl⁵⁸ –

And for the completeness of understanding of the sicha below, the content of the story is transcribed here:

The tzaddik of Chernobyl, upon arriving in a certain city, was accustomed to lodge with one of his chassidim. Once, the tzaddik announced that they should prepare for him other lodgings in the city,

not with the aforementioned chassid,

and not only that, but he forbids the chassid from going with the chassidim and meeting him,

and also forbids him from entering into him for yechidus,

from being with him during prayers and from coming to his table,

and from seeing him in any manner whatsoever. Only on one condition can he come to him –

that he bring him the sum of two thousand rubles.

When the tzaddik's words reached the chassid –

and seeing that in no way could he obtain such a large sum even if he sold all his possessions, this distressed him exceedingly and he wept bitterly.

The tzaddik arrived in the city and there was joy and gladness throughout the city,

and only the aforementioned chassid was steeped in sorrow.

After a short time, a troop of soldiers passed through the city,

and some of them stayed in the house of the aforementioned chassid,

who had in their possession the money chest of the entire troop. And suddenly, in the middle of the night, an order came to them that within minutes the entire troop must leave the city. The soldiers in the chassid's house,

in their haste to leave his house,

left the money chest there. However, afterwards they returned to search for the chest,

and searched in all the houses,

and miraculously they did not search in the house of the aforementioned chassid.

Several months passed,

and the chassid saw that they did not come to him and understood that Heaven had deemed him entitled to it. He opened the chest,

and first of all took out two thousand rubles from it and traveled to the tzaddik of Chernobyl and brought him the money. The tzaddik said to him:

I saw in Heaven that it was decreed upon you that you would become very wealthy,

but they wanted you to pray for this in truth and only then would they give it to you,

and since I know you that you are satisfied with little,

therefore I sought a counsel that you would need to pray that they give you much money. And I did all that I did,

and you prayed and supplicated to Hashem and then they gave it to you.

Thus far the content of the story in brief.

And in continuation of this story, His Holy Presence, the Rebbe, shlita, said:]

By me it is customary to ask "a tough question". I have a "tough question" on this story. And I will answer it myself:

How is it that because Rabbi Nachum of Chernobyl wanted to cause the chassid to ask for the money –

he should distress the chassid for months on end,

until the chassid would see that the soldiers are not returning for the money?!

True indeed,

he wanted to cause him to ask –

but he could have done this in one day,

why did it have to drag on for so much time of distressing a chassid so that he could not come to see his Rebbe?

And of course the greatness of the distress and shame involved,

that a chassid who was,

apparently,

accustomed to be with the Chernobyler –

should not be able to go to him and hear Torah or go to his synagogue to hear him say "Amen, Y'hei Sh'mei Rabbah",

through which Rabbi Nachum became physically fat

(as it states in several Chassidic discourses*⁵⁸) –

at a time when all other chassidim can go to him –

the distress of this chassid that he cannot go there is understandable,

and all the more so and how much more so:

even if a simple Jew came,

even a coarse fellow,

he would have distress from this that everyone can enter there and he is not allowed in!...

So how can it be said that Rabbi Nachum distressed a Jew with such great distress and great shame for weeks and months on end –

when it could have taken a short time for him to cause him to ask for the money?!

Therefore it must be said,

in order to answer the "tough question" –

that the story needs one correction:

The beginning of the story is true,

the end of the story is true –

but the detail in the story that this lasted months is not exact,

rather in truth all this indeed lasted one day:

On the same day that Rabbi Nachum forbade him from coming to him until he brings the money,

the chassid immediately began to cry with true and chassidic tears,

it immediately brought about that on that same day the soldiers came,

and that day they left and left the money with him,

and on that same day the chassid returned with the money to Rabbi Nachum,

and the distress was removed.

And accordingly everything is smooth!

The error in the story came from this –

that it is common with many,

that when telling a story one is not so precise in details,

reckoning that the main thing is the general content,

and not the details,

the time and place and names etc.

The truth is, however,

as was heard from His Holy Presence, my father-in-law, the Rebbe⁵⁹,

that one must tell a story with all the details and exactitudes,

and this is relevant to the general content of the story.

So too happened here:

Because they were not precise in telling the story exactly with all the details,

it brought about,

as is the nature of people,

that each one added details in order to beautify,

make the story nicer. He hears a story that Rabbi Nachum said that the chassid should not come to him until he brings two thousand rubles –

they added a detail,

that until he brought the money months passed,

reckoning that this makes the story nicer,

with what does one make it nicer? With this, that Rabbi Nachum tormented a Jew, Heaven forbid, for months on end!...

Therefore it must be said,

that the story needs a small correction,

that instead of months,

it all happened on that same day,

as above.

Regarding the practical –

it does not affect the "Melaveh Malkah",

and the money that needs to come in through this for the "Gemach".

[The rest they will participate in,

and give money.

(His Holy Presence, the Rebbe, shlita, smiled,

and said:

) And on the contrary:

The reward that they need to pay me for the answer to the "tough question" –

let them give it to the Gemach!].

And great is charity that brings the redemption closer⁶⁰ –

this hastens the redemption even faster,

in a manner of "Achishenah"⁶¹,

that instead of Mashiach coming in five moments,

he will come in four moments,

and instead of four moments –

it will be even better in three moments,

and instead of three moments –

it will be even better in two moments,

and since one cannot limit Mashiach our righteousness –

he can make that he come in one moment,

instantly, immediately,

in the true and complete redemption,

in one hour and one moment literally.

Afterwards he said:

I hope that the storyteller will not be offended by my having made emendations and corrections in his story. And if he is offended –

I ask forgiveness and pardon and atonement,

and let all the people say Amen!

His Holy Presence, the Rebbe, shlita, began to sing "V'harikosi lachem bracha".

We will begin with the matter in the Rambam –

because we will also continue in the Rambam from the previous farbrengen,

as below.

In today's lesson of Rambam⁶², the Rambam enumerates several titles for the World to Come:

"And many names are called for it

(the World to Come)

for example,

the mountain of Hashem,

and the place of His holiness,

and the way of holiness,

and the courts of Hashem,

and the pleasantness of Hashem,

and the tent of Hashem,

and the palace of Hashem,

and the house of Hashem,

and the gate of Hashem".

According to the known great precision in the words of the Rambam,

and especially regarding the number of matters

(verses and the like)

that the Rambam brings,

as he is precise in many places to write out the number

(even though one could count himself)⁶³,

and the Rambam is precise to bring a complete number,

as was discussed once –

it is understandable,

that even though the Rambam does not write a number here,

the number of titles that he brings here for the World to Come is certainly exact,

for there are other titles in the Torah that the Rambam does not bring.

When one counts the titles –

one sees that he enumerates nine titles. One must have an explanation why he brings specifically nine titles –

the number nine seemingly has no special virtue?

Seemingly, one could connect this with what the Rambam writes earlier

(in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah⁶⁴),

that there are "nine spheres",

and not only does he enumerate the nine spheres,

but he prefaces "and they are nine spheres",

and enumerates each sphere by its number

(second sphere,

third sphere etc.).

There, however, the Rambam counts another, tenth sphere –

as he writes there further⁶⁵ "the Almighty created below the sphere of the moon

(the first sphere)

one raw material that is not like the raw material of the spheres,

and created four forms for this raw material etc.,

the form of fire etc.,

the form of wind etc.,

the form of water etc.,

the form of earth etc."

(the four elements).

It turns out that there are altogether ten spheres

(not nine spheres),

and ten is the completeness of number⁶⁶

(as discussed at the previous farbrengen⁶⁷).

And that which the Rambam does not write "and they are ten spheres",

rather he divides the nine spheres and the tenth sphere and enumerates them separately –

is because the Almighty created them thus with the division between heaven and earth,

as the verse emphasizes:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"⁶⁸,

"heavens" separately and "earth" separately –

therefore the Rambam also divides thus:

the nine spheres in the heavens,

and the tenth sphere "below the firmament"⁶⁵.

And accordingly one will also understand why the Rambam prefaces their number "and they are nine spheres"

(even though one could count them himself),

for seemingly:

What is the practical difference? Granted, regarding laws where it is relevant that one should know and not forget how many details are there –

it is understandable why the Rambam enumerates the number⁶⁹,

because it is relevant to halachah;

but regarding the spheres –

who cares if one forgets about a sphere? True indeed,

"I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers"⁷⁰

(as the Rambam brings earlier⁷¹),

but what is gained by knowing that there are "nine spheres"?

So the explanation of this is:

The Rambam writes further about the virtue of the nine spheres,

that "all of them possess soul, knowledge and intellect,

and they are living and enduring and recognize the One who spoke and the world came into being etc.,

and the knowledge of the stars and spheres is less than the knowledge of the angels and greater than the knowledge of human beings"⁷²,

but not so the four elements

(in the tenth sphere below the nine spheres in the firmament),

"they do not possess soul and do not know nor recognize etc."⁷³.

And since the spheres in the heavens have the wondrous virtue relative to the sphere "below the firmament"

(the four elements) –

therefore the Rambam emphasizes that this virtue is also expressed in their number:

the spheres of the heavens are represented by "nine",

the majority of the completeness of ten –

they have given in them the most that can be given –

in a manner that the necessary minority remains in the earth –

one sphere.

That is, the spheres in the heavens are not equal in virtue to the sphere below, rather they consist of nine,

the majority of completeness,

apart from the sphere that is below this.

But this is as they stand divided –

"heavens" separately and "earth" separately

(as in the verse "the heavens and the earth");

but the total of all the spheres is – ten

(nine in the heavens and the four elements) –

the completeness of number. And this is also emphasized in that the Rambam writes the number "nine spheres" –

"nine spheres" in the heavens,

together with the sphere "below the firmament" makes ten spheres.

And this is analogous and similar to what we find regarding the "ten utterances" by which the world was created ⁷⁴:

In total there are ten utterances –

the completeness of number. But in particular –

they divide into two divisions:

nine utterances that are revealed,

and "Bereishit" which "is also an utterance" ⁷⁵,

as explained in many places the difference between the nine utterances and the utterance of Bereishit ⁷⁶.

Similarly regarding the spheres:

In total there are ten spheres,

but in particular they divide into two types –

nine spheres in the heavens and one sphere below. Only regarding the spheres this is in an order from above downward –

that one sphere is below the nine spheres,

unlike regarding the utterances where this is an order from below upward –

that the one utterance

("Bereishit")

is higher than the nine utterances.

This is all an explanation regarding the spheres. We still need to understand what is the explanation in that the Rambam brings nine attributes regarding the World to Come,

as above.

And one could say:

One of the nine attributes is "Courts of Hashem". And it is the only one of the nine attributes that is in the plural form

(all the others are in the singular form).

And based on this one could say,

that since the minimum of plural is two ⁷⁷,

it follows that "Courts of Hashem" actually includes within itself

(in particular)

two matters. And particularly according to what is explained in many places ⁷⁸,

that "Courts of Hashem" refers to two aspects of court,

the outer court and the inner court

(as it says in the Scroll of Esther ⁷⁹ "and she stood in the inner court of the king's house"),

and in the Sefirot –

Netzach and Hod ⁸⁰,

which sometimes are counted as one matter,

but in particular they are two Sefirot.

And based on this it follows,

that the nine attributes in particular divide into ten matters

(which indicates completeness) –

the nine attributes,

and "Courts of Hashem" divides into two.

And one could say,

that they correspond to the ten Sefirot. And the Sefirot of Netzach and Hod are counted together

("Courts of Hashem") –

as is known that the ten Sefirot are attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and particularly of the Name Havayah,

the Essential Name ⁸¹ –

and most of the attributes

(that the Rambam writes)

are with the Name Havayah.

And this is similar to what was discussed earlier regarding the spheres –

that in total there are ten spheres,

only in particular they divide into nine spheres in the heavens and one sphere below,

similar to the ten utterances, which divide into the nine utterances and the utterance of Bereishit.

Similarly in our case:

In general there are nine attributes,

but in particular they divide into ten

("Courts of Hashem" divides into two –

Netzach and Hod).

And the reason why the Rambam does not write here the number of attributes

(as he writes it regarding the spheres –

"nine spheres") –

is because here it is not relevant,

unlike regarding the spheres,

"the work of Creation" ⁸²,

as above.

Here is the place to explain the matter in the Rambam upon which we stood at the farbrengen of the previous Shabbat ⁸³:

In the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah ⁸⁴ the Rambam writes:

"This honored and awesome G-d commands to love Him and fear Him, as it is said ⁸⁵ 'And you shall love Hashem your G-d' and it is said ⁸⁶ 'You shall fear Hashem your G-d'."

They asked:

Why does the Rambam use the Name "E-l"? And particularly since in the proofs from verses that the Rambam brings in this very halacha it says "Hashem" and "your G-d"

("And you shall love Hashem your G-d",

"You shall fear Hashem your G-d") –

he should have used the Name Havayah

(or Hashem Elokim).

And particularly since in the subsequent laws

(in the same matter)

the Rambam uses the Name Hashem –

"the Great Name" ⁸⁷.

And we were left with a question. In the meantime, no one endeavored to seek an answer

(at least as far as I have heard) –

not because of a lack of intellect,

but because of lack of attention. They are occupied with other things,

more important things,

matters of Torah and mitzvot...

Indeed there is the option,

that one should cry out "Teiku",

and go to sleep peacefully relying that when Elijah the Prophet comes it will be

("Teiku" is an acronym)

"Tishbi will resolve difficulties and problems" ⁸⁸. And in this very thing –

there can be a manner,

not that he goes to sleep because he is full of fatigue and the question does not bother him,

but on the contrary:

He is so certain that when Elijah comes he will answer the question –

consequently he can meanwhile sleep peacefully!

But the proper order according to Torah must be –

that when one has a difficulty,

one must endeavor to seek an answer. Therefore we will now endeavor to answer the aforementioned question regarding "the honored and awesome G-d"

(at least briefly).

After the Rambam writes "This honored and awesome G-d commands to love Him and fear Him etc.",

he continues to speak about the way to attain this love and fear –

"And what is the way to love Him and fear Him,

at the time that a person contemplates His wondrous and great deeds and creations and sees from them His wisdom which has no value or end at all,

immediately he loves etc. and greatly desires to know the Great Name".

We see here two matters:

a) The contemplation that brings to love and fear

("the way to love Him and fear Him"),

and b) The love and fear themselves.

And one could say,

that the first matter

(the contemplation)

is primarily connected with the Name "E-l",

and the second matter

(the love and fear themselves) –

is primarily connected with the Name "Hashem Elokim"

("And you shall love Hashem your G-d",

"You shall fear Hashem your G-d").

And the explanation:

When it speaks about the contemplation of man

(in order to attain love of Hashem and fear of Hashem) –

the contemplation must indeed be in the greatness of the Creator etc.,

but it must still have some connection and relation to the contemplating person. For example,

that the Supreme One is the Creator of man and the world,

or regarding "His wondrous and great deeds and creations",

or regarding the influences from the Supreme One to the person,

and so forth –

because if it speaks about the Supreme One as He is completely beyond comparison to the person,

and has no connection to him –

then no contemplation and comprehension is applicable in this, and it will not affect the person,

consequently it cannot bring him to love and fear.

And in the Names of the Holy One, blessed be He, the matter

(that the Supreme One has a connection and relation to the person)

is expressed in the Name "E-l".

In contrast, the Name Havayah,

the Essential Name,

refers to the true reality and essence of the Supreme One,

which is as the Supreme One is completely beyond comparison to man and the world,

consequently there is no place there for a matter of contemplation that will affect the person.

And this can be explained according to the explanation of the Rambam

(earlier in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah ⁸⁹,

and also in the Guide for the Perplexed ⁹⁰)

regarding Moses' request to the Holy One, blessed be He, "Show me now Your glory" ⁹¹:

"What is it that Moses our teacher sought to comprehend when he said 'Show me now Your glory',

he sought to know the true reality of the existence of the Holy One, blessed be He, until it would be known in his heart like the knowledge of one of the people who saw his face and whose image was engraved in his heart, so that that person is distinguished in his mind from other people,

so Moses our teacher sought that the existence of the Holy One, blessed be He, be distinguished in his heart from all other existences until he would know the true reality of His existence as it is,

And the Blessed One answered him,

that the power of the living human intellect etc. cannot comprehend the true reality of this matter clearly,

and the Blessed One informed him etc. until he comprehended from the true reality of His existence a matter by which the Holy One, blessed be He, was distinguished in his mind from all other existences,

as one person is distinguished from another who saw his back etc.,

and about this the verse alluded and said ⁹² 'And you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen'."

That is,

that "the true reality of His existence" –

"My face" –

no person can understand,

"You cannot see My face, for no man shall see Me and live" ⁹³,

because that is completely beyond comparison to a person;

but "And you shall see My back" –

the Supreme One revealed Himself to Moses in a manner that he could comprehend Him,

i.e., not the essence of the Holy One, blessed be He, itself,

but His attributes

(as the Rambam explains ⁹⁴),

how He clothes Himself and has a connection and relation to the person,

"as one person is distinguished from another who saw his back".

And upon this the Supreme One revealed to him the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy –

"And Hashem passed before his face and called out: Hashem, Hashem, G-d, compassionate and gracious etc." ⁹⁵:

The first Name of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy,

the Name Havayah –

is the Essential Name,

which refers to "the true reality of His existence",

above the comprehension of any person. And also the second Name Havayah

(which refers to Havayah below ⁹⁶,

which has a connection and relation to human comprehension) –

according to halacha we do not distinguish between it and the first Name Havayah. And particularly since the Name Havayah in general is the Essential Name.

Which Name has a connection and relation to the comprehension of Moses our teacher? It begins from the Name "E-l"

(the first Name after "Havayah Havayah") ⁹⁷.

And all this was said regarding the first aforementioned matter –

the contemplation of man,

that this is primarily in

(the Name)

"the G-d",

which refers to Divinity that has a connection and relation to human comprehension.

After there has been, however, the contemplation in "the G-d",

a contemplation that brings to love and fear –

the perfection of love and fear is specifically when this is connected with the Name Havayah

(the Essential Name),

when the person perceives that there is the existence of Havayah

(the Essential Name),

"the true reality of His existence",

which is completely separate and beyond comparison from him,

and nevertheless the Supreme One

(Havayah)

created him etc. –

then the love is greater and with more fervor than when it is connected with the Name "E-l" alone,

which has a connection and relation to him.

And based on this it is understandable why the Rambam uses here the Name "E-l",

even though afterwards in the verse it says "Hashem your G-d"

("And you shall love Hashem your G-d",

"You shall fear Hashem your G-d"):

From the aspect of contemplation –

which must be placed in the person in his intellect –

the contemplation is in "the G-d",

but afterwards from the aspect of love and fear

(which come about through the contemplation) –

this is primarily in "Hashem",

and as "Hashem" becomes "your G-d".

And one may add:

According to what is explained in the commentaries that the two attributes "the honored and awesome" are connected with the two matters of love and fear –

it follows,

that the contemplation is in "the G-d",

and "the G-d" is "the honored and awesome",

which brings to love and fear.

We will also dwell on a matter in the Rambam lesson from Motzaei Shabbat –

the end of the Laws of Repentance:

The Rambam writes in that lesson ⁹⁸,

that the perfection of service is service for its own sake,

out of love,

as it was with Abraham our father,

"whom the Holy One, blessed be He, called His beloved" ⁹⁹ –

"Abraham My beloved" ¹⁰⁰.

But afterwards he adds ¹⁰¹:

"And the Sages said: A person should always occupy himself with Torah even not for its own sake, for from not for its own sake he comes to for its own sake."

In this halacha two things are emphasized:

a) "A person should always occupy himself with Torah even not for its own sake",

i.e., even when he is still at the level of "not for its own sake"

(and he is certain that it will take a further period of time until he attains "for its own sake"),

as is the case with minors –

he must occupy himself with Torah and mitzvot –

because this concerns a Jew.

And furthermore:

b) "For from not for its own sake he comes to for its own sake":

Since his essence is always whole,

as the Rambam rules that every Jew,

even a Jew whom one must beat in order that he obey the court,

"wants to be of Israel and wants to perform all the mitzvot etc." ¹⁰² –

it ultimately brings to service "for its own sake". And particularly according to the interpretation ¹⁰³ "from not for its own sake he comes to for its own sake" –

that the "inner" and pnimiyut of "not for its own sake" is "for its own sake".

And from this is the lesson how we must engage with every Jew, even a single one,

even if he is still at the level of service not for its own sake,

because firstly –

"A person should always occupy himself with Torah even not for its own sake",

and secondly –

"for from not for its own sake he comes to for its own sake".

And particularly when we stand in the last days before the coming of Mashiach,

and we are soon going to the Redemption –

then it will be "Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust" ¹⁰⁴ and Abraham our father among them,

all Jews will then see him openly and all the more so from that which then it will be "your Teacher will no longer be hidden" ¹⁰⁵],

and see openly how he is "Abraham My beloved",

and he serves his service for its own sake,

and does it with self-sacrifice,

and this permeates his entire existence, being a chariot for Divinity,

and as it says regarding the Patriarchs that "they were a chariot only for the supernal will all their days" ¹⁰⁶,

and on the contrary –

in the future the service of Abraham will be even higher than it was in his time –

Then when Jews will see a living Abraham our father,

and see how he is "Abraham My beloved" and performs his service for its own sake –

it will certainly affect them,

that they should be in a similar manner.

And all this is further hastened through the service of Jews now,

as the Rambam rules

(in the previous chapters of the Laws of Repentance)

"The Torah promised that ultimately Israel will repent etc. and immediately they are redeemed",

speedily in our days, literally, and in our time, literally.

The explanation why Rashi does not explain "in basins",

in contrast to Ibn Ezra who does explain there:

Initially there was a thought to say that Ibn Ezra knew Arabic,

in contrast to Rashi who perhaps did not know it.

And as is known from their chronicles –

that Ibn Ezra lived in Arab countries

(and he also traveled from place to place,

and had troubles etc.),

consequently he certainly knew Arabic.

In contrast, Rashi was in France and did not travel so much

[although it is known that he did travel a little "for when he completed the commentary on the Torah and most of the Gemaras and did not want to reveal his notebooks and commentaries to the yeshivot lest others precede him etc. and in this exile he composed and expounded in the yeshivot the commentaries, peace be upon them" ¹⁰⁷],

consequently one could say that Rashi did not know Arabic.

And based on this –

one could explain why Ibn Ezra gives an explanation of "in basins" in contrast to Rashi who gives no explanation –

because Ibn Ezra knew Arabic,

he knew that in Arabic there is a word "agan",

which means a round vessel;

in contrast, Rashi did not know Arabic,

he did not know the explanation of "in basins".

And even though it is written thus in the verse –

nevertheless, in the plain meaning of Scripture there is no difference what kind of vessel it was

(whether round,

or square,

or triangular).

And the plain meaning only matters that it was a vessel,

and this a five-year-old studying Scripture understands from the verse itself. Therefore Rashi does not need to explain at all,

because there is no difference from the aspect of the explanation of the verse that it means "round vessels".

Therefore:

If Rashi had known Arabic –

he would have explained that "agnot" means "round vessels"

(as Ibn Ezra explains);

but since he does not know it –

he does not explain at all,

and nothing is lacking in the explanation of the verse,

because from the perspective of the explanation of the verse there is no difference.

And even though Rashi knows that in Song of Songs it says "agun hasahar",

and there it means a circle

(just as the moon is a circle) –

there is a rule in Rashi that a matter that appears later does not pertain to earlier –

he does not bring it until one arrives there;

and the explanation that "bagunot" means "round vessels" is not relevant here to the explanation of the verse,

as above.

Moreover:

There is no necessity

(according to the simple meaning)

from "agun hasahar"

(a round object)

that the explanation here is also thus. And on the contrary:

Since there it says "agun hasahar" and here it says "bagunot" without specification –

there is a logical reason to say,

that here it specifically does not mean a circle.

All this was as a supposition that Rashi did not know Arabic;

Afterwards, however, I caught myself to look inside,

let us take a book and see ¹⁰⁸,

in Song of Songs where it says "agun hasahar",

and there one sees that Rashi explains:

"And in the Arabic language 'sahar' is called thus because the navel is like a round hole, he compares it to a round basin."

One sees that Rashi indeed knew Arabic. One cannot say that he did not give any explanation of "bagunot" because he did not know Arabic.

Therefore one must say another explanation in this. The explanation in this is –

according to what was discussed above:

Even though Rashi indeed knows

(from Arabic)

the explanation of "agnot"

(that it means "round vessels") –

this, however, is not relevant to the simple meaning of Scripture:

In the simple meaning of Scripture only that "agnot" are vessels is relevant

(in which Moshe placed the blood),

but it is not relevant what type of vessels they are –

whether round,

square,

triangular, etc.

[Regarding the Paschal offering there is a difference in what kind of vessel one should place the blood,

"and they did not have flat-bottomed cups lest he set them down and the blood congeal" ¹⁰⁹;

but here this is not relevant].

Therefore Rashi has nothing to explain here.

In Song of Songs it is relevant to say that it is "round" –

because there the subject is to express completeness and beauty. And "round" indicates beauty

(that it is not pointed but rounded);

but in our portion this is not relevant,

therefore Rashi does not explain at all.

And even though Rashi brings in many places an explanation in la'az –

however:

a) The simple explanation of "bila'az" –

an acronym for "bilshon am zar"

(others say that it is from the term "la'azi",

which appears in the Gemara in many places),

and "the language of a foreign people" for Rashi was French,

not Arabic. Consequently, if Rashi had brought a word from Arabic –

the five-year-old student of Scripture would have asked him:

Why do you bring us a word from a language we do not understand?

b) Moreover:

Since nothing is lacking in the verse without this explanation –

for in the simple meaning of the verses there is no difference whether these are "round vessels" or not –

an explanation here is superfluous. And on the contrary:

If Rashi had given an explanation,

the five-year-old student of Scripture would have asked,

What is lacking here in the simple meaning that we need an explanation?

The explanation in Rashi on the verse "Ascend to Me on the mountain and be there" –

"forty days":

As a supposition one could possibly say,

that the words "forty days" Rashi copies from the language of the verse later

("forty days"),

as is his way in many places that he copies in his explanation phrases from the verse. And Rashi's intention is –

to explain,

that "and he was there forty days" is not a separate matter but it comes in one continuum with "Ascend to Me on the mountain and be there".

One cannot, however, say thus

[It is not merely a forced interpretation,

rather one cannot say thus at all] –

because the language of the verse is "forty days and forty nights" –

so if Rashi is copying the language of the verse he should have written not only "forty days",

but also "and forty nights".

Thus the explanation in this:

When one learns the verse "Ascend to Me on the mountain and be there" –

immediately a strong question arises:

What do the words "and be there" add? What is being taught?

It is a simple thing that "ascend the mountain" is not so that he should immediately descend,

but so that he should be there and do something –

so why does the verse need to emphasize "and be there"?!

Therefore Rashi copies all these words

("Ascend to Me on the mountain and be there")

and explains –

that the addition of "and be there"

(to "Ascend to Me on the mountain")

comes to teach,

that the "and be there" consists of a long duration of time.

That is, not as it was before the Giving of the Torah,

that immediately after Moshe's ascent on the mountain it was "and Moshe descended from the mountain to the people,

this teaches that Moshe did not turn to his affairs except from the mountain to the people" *¹⁰⁹ –

rather here the Omnipresent says "and be there" for a duration of time,

"and be there" –

in his existence he shall be ¹¹⁰,

the existence of Moshe

(his being),

shall be there for a duration of time.

But Rashi does not write "duration of time" –

because from the verse further on Rashi knows how much time this was. Therefore he writes

(that the duration of time of "and be there")

is "forty days"

[which also includes night,

unlike if one had said (as above) that Rashi is copying the language of the verse he would have also had to copy "and forty nights"].

The explanation in Rashi on the verse "If you lend money" –

Why does Rashi repeat three times in the Torah the same explanation –

one can say according to a new rule in Rashi:

When Rashi gives an explanation that is a striking novelty for a five-year-old student of Scripture –

a difficult explanation that jumps out at the eyes every time Rashi says the explanation –

Rashi does not rely on the fact that he explained it earlier,

rather he repeats it.

As one can ask of any true educator –

that when he tells the child a novel thing,

which jumps out at the eyes every time –

he repeats it to the child again and again.

And regarding this Rashi:

The explanation that "every 'im' and 'im' in the Torah is optional except for three" is a great novelty,

a matter that does not settle simply with a five-year-old. Therefore Rashi repeats it in each of the three places.

The explanation in the notes on the Zohar,

and in all these explanations of the verses in the Midrashim of Chazal and Chassidus, etc.:

There is a rule ¹¹¹ that in Scripture, a matter does not depart from its simple meaning. Everything that is stated in the Torah –

means first and foremost in its simple sense.

Only because the Omnipresent is omnipotent,

He made it that everything stated in the Torah includes within itself additional explanations

(in addition to the simple explanation) –

according to the homiletical interpretation and according to the mystical interpretation, etc.

When it is stated in the Torah –

that one must put on tefillin,

one must observe Shabbat, and so forth –

it means first and foremost in its simple sense,

that one must put on tefillin literally,

and observe Shabbat literally, etc. Only in addition to this do the commandments have within themselves several interpretations and explanations in the Midrashim of Chazal, etc.,

including also what the Rambam writes –

that commandments are "to correct opinions and straighten all actions". But heaven forbid, heaven forbid to say –

that the commandments are only "to correct opinions",

but not in their literal sense –

this is contrary to the entire Torah. Only, as stated,

first and foremost they are in their literal sense,

afterwards comes the matter of "to correct opinions", etc.

So too regarding the two notes of the father on the Zohar in our portion:

The intention of the words of the Zohar "And when this soul departs from this world, meritorious, pure, chosen" –

is first and foremost in its simple sense,

that at the time "the soul departs from this world" it must be "meritorious, pure, chosen". For this a person must know,

that being a soul in a body, his conduct must be in accordance with this:

he must conduct himself in a manner of "meritorious" and "pure" and "chosen".

And in addition to this simple explanation –

this also has within itself the explanation as the father elucidates –

"opposite the soul, spirit, and breath,

also opposite thought, speech, and action,

also opposite the three aspects in the vessels,

outer, middle, and inner, etc."

Likewise in the second note:

The intention of the words of the Zohar "the food of that wicked one was meat in milk and cheese with meat" –

is first and foremost in its simple sense. That Nebuchadnezzar the wicked was a glutton and ate meat in milk

(as is known, one of the reasons for "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" –

from the aspect of cruelty ¹¹²).

And in addition to this there is also the explanation in the sefirot

(as the father elucidates) –

that he mixed kindnesses and severities ¹¹³.

And likewise is the explanation regarding all the explanations of Chazal –

that they come in addition to the simple explanation in the Torah.

For example –

Rashi's first explanation on the Torah:

"Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should not have begun except from 'This month is for you' ¹¹⁴, which is the first commandment that Israel was commanded,

and why did it begin with Bereishit,

because of 'the strength of His deeds He declared to His people, to give them the heritage of the nations' ¹¹⁵,

so that if the nations of the world say to Israel, 'You are robbers, for you conquered the lands of the seven nations,'

they say to them, 'All the earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He, etc.'"

Rashi's explanation comes in addition to the simple explanation in the verse of why "it began with Bereishit":

The reason for this in the most simple sense is –

because the first thing that happened in chronological order is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth",

the creation of the worlds. Therefore one begins from the first thing in chronological order,

and afterwards the Torah proceeds in order of the generations –

the generation of Adam,

the generation of Enosh,

the generation of Noah,

the generation of Abraham, etc.

That is, in the most simple sense

(were it not that the Torah comes to teach about commandments)

there is no place at all to ask that "the Torah should not have begun except from 'This month is for you' which is the first commandment that Israel was commanded,

and why did it begin with Bereishit" –

because according to chronological order there is no place to write "Bereishit" after the book of "Shemot"! And there is also no place to say,

that "why did it begin with Bereishit" –

in order to counter what the nations will say 2000 years later when Israel will conquer the Land of Israel! If one needs to counter the claim of the nations –

one can counter it when the time for this comes –

why must one counter it 2000 years earlier?!

Only, as stated,

the simple explanation of "it began with Bereishit" –

is because this was the beginning of all matters.

Only in addition to this –

Rashi comes and says his explanation,

that since the subject of the Torah is to teach about commandments –

the question arises "the Torah should not have begun except from 'This month is for you' which is the first commandment that Israel was commanded,

and why did it begin with Bereishit",

why does the Torah relate the entire "history"

(in the vernacular).

Therefore one must arrive at the explanation –

that "the strength of His deeds He declared to His people, to give them the heritage of the nations, etc."

In practical terms –

We remind again that one should bring down all these matters mentioned above into actual deed,

including and especially –

the matter that every Jew,

men, women, and children,

should make of his home,

room,

four cubits –

a house of Torah,

prayer, and acts of kindness.

And just as all matters of Torah and commandments were commanded to every Jew as an individual –

which is also one of the reasons why the Ten Commandments are stated in the singular ¹¹⁶ –

so too regarding the command of "Make for Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst",

that this was commanded to each individual separately,

and each and every one must know that it means him

(or her)

personally,

for "each person is obligated to say, 'For my sake the world was created'" ¹¹⁷,

the entire world with all the Jews around him were created for his sake. Consequently,

when one tells him to make a house of Torah,

prayer, and acts of kindness –

it means,

that you should make this from your own home,

your own room,

your own table and chairs,

and so forth!

And likewise each and every one must influence the Jews around,

by showing a living example.

And the making of a "miniature Sanctuary" in every Jewish home –

will further hasten the building of the third Holy Temple,

speedily in our days, literally,

and out of joy and goodness of heart,

all Jews will go,

"with our young and with our elders, etc., with our sons and with our daughters" ¹¹⁸,

to our holy land,

and to the third Holy Temple,

"the Sanctuary, Hashem, Your hands established" ¹¹⁹,

"Hashem will reign forever and ever" ¹²⁰,

"Hashem is One and His Name is One" ¹²¹.

The Rebbe shlita instructed to sing "He will build the Holy Temple, etc."

What was discussed here about the preparations for the Purim campaign –

is included in the aforementioned talk that was printed in a separate booklet.

Afterwards he said:

Those who need to make an after-blessing,

will surely make an after-blessing.

- - - - - - - -

Completion of the aforementioned talk

[At the beginning of the talk it was said:]

Regarding the portion of Shekalim, it is discussed in the Mishnah, Gemara, and halachic authorities,

early and later authorities. And since every Jew is presumed to be kosher ¹²² –

today they have certainly looked into the books and studied it

(and the letters shine) –

in accordance with the obligation to study the laws of the day ¹²³ –

or they will yet study it in the last moments and hours of the day.

[Regarding the fact that "Tzidkatcha Tzedek" is not said on Shabbat that is the eve of the new month – he said:]

And as discussed many times,

that one cannot say that what we do not say "Tzidkatcha Tzedek" today

(or generally the omission of saying Tachanun on Shabbat and festivals, etc.) –

is a deficiency. Can one say that when one stands on a lofty day,

like the eve of the new month –

the Torah "punishes" a Jew,

that then the actions that the recitation of "Tzidkatcha Tzedek"

(and Tachanun)

accomplish are lacking to him;

is it conceivable to say that standing on a day like the eve of the new month –

one comes to punish a Jew?!

Rather, the explanation is certainly –

that on the contrary:

Then the actions are accomplished in a more elevated manner –

then it is accomplished by the power of the Torah,

not only by the power of man through reciting Tachanun as on other days.

[In continuation of the general explanation of the content of Shabbat Shekalim – he said:]

And the lesson of Shabbat Shekalim must be drawn into all the days of the year,

as discussed many times ¹²⁴. That even though the portion of Shekalim is "once a year" –

the explanation in this, however,

is not that it is "once" and separate from the rest of the days of the year,

but on the contrary:

The "once" is drawn into "a year",

into the year,

so that it causes that every day of the year becomes a "once a year" in this matter.

And since we have all these matters on this Shabbat –

the portion of Shekalim,

blessing of Adar,

whose 14th

(main content)

is Purim,

and the portion of Mishpatim –

it is a certain thing that "I do not ask etc. except according to their power" ¹²⁵,

and a Jew was given the powers to utilize this in practice.

And to utilize as the Most High desires,

as is proper, in completeness,

including,

also –

with joy and a good heart

(as it is written ¹²⁶ "because you did not serve Hashem your G-d with joy and a good heart").

And the Alter Rebbe writes on this ¹²⁷ "and it is known to all the explanation of the Ari, of blessed memory, on this verse."

[We will explain here what "it is known to all the explanation of the Ari, of blessed memory" means, even though there are many to whom the explanation of the Ari, of blessed memory, is not known,

and in general about the Ari, of blessed memory (note ⁷¹ above).

And regarding the wondrous title that the Alter Rebbe brings here "the Ari, of blessed memory",

an acronym for "the G-dly, our master, our teacher, Yitzchak, may his memory be for a blessing" –

he added:]

It is known what the Chayim Vital writes in his introduction to Shaar HaHakdamot ¹²⁸

(printed in the addition to the pamphlet Etz HaChayim ¹²⁹)

that the Ari, of blessed memory, received from Elijah the Prophet, along with several other wondrous matters, a genius beyond the ordinary –

one does not pay proper attention to this. The title "Ari, of blessed memory", however, emphasizes an even higher matter:

not only that the Ari, of blessed memory, is a recipient from Elijah the Prophet,

but that he is "the G-dly, our master, etc."

And since the Alter Rebbe uses this title here in Tanya –

it is understood that this is with utmost precision. Contrary to the opinion of those who err,

that one brings an acronym in order to save space and write in abbreviation,

rather it is relevant to the content of the matter. As is seen in practice,

that in places where it is relevant to write out the word explicitly –

one writes it explicitly and not with an acronym.

As one also sees the difference in Halacha –

that in a legal document according to Torah law, there are cases where one does not write any names in acronyms,

rather one must write them out explicitly. To the extent that one must write a name that has a yud and then a hei,

and not write a yud with a stroke

(as is the usual manner ¹³⁰).

Accordingly, it is understood,

since the Alter Rebbe writes here "the Ari, of blessed memory" specifically with an acronym and with this title,

it is with utmost precision. And especially when one sees that in other places he writes it in a different manner.

According to this, the question becomes even stronger:

How can one say that "it is known to all the explanation of the Ari, of blessed memory, on this verse"

[from which language it is understood that the explanation is a novel idea of the Ari, of blessed memory,

his innovation,

and not an explanation that the Ari, of blessed memory, took from predecessors,

because then the Alter Rebbe would have brought it from them and not from the Ari, of blessed memory] –

when there are those who do not know of it,

and all the more so they do not know about "the Ari, of blessed memory" as he stands at the ultimate level as hinted in these acronyms

("the G-dly, our master, etc.").

And since the Alter Rebbe writes that "it is known to all" he means this simply

(without any forced interpretation),

and especially according to the known fact that the book of Tanya is the Written Torah of Chassidus –

regarding which the rule is "a verse does not depart from its simple meaning."

And the explanation –

that from the aspect of the body "it is known to all the explanation of the Ari, of blessed memory, on this verse"

(and only that for some there is not yet knowledge from the aspect of the soul's enclothing in the body),

similar to those who do not see but their mazal sees, and because of this a great trembling fell upon them in the physical body.

And since "there is none among us who knows until what" –

it could be that the Alter Rebbe opened the channel so that the explanation of the Ari, of blessed memory, should be "known to all",

from the aspect of the mazal of the soul and the physical body.

[Continuing the explanation of the difference between Chanukah and Purim – he said:]

In several matters Chanukah and Purim are similar –

not only that both are Rabbinic commandments,

for there are other Rabbinic commandments,

rather one sees that in several matters specifically Chanukah and Purim are compared. And as one also sees in the prayer text:

both on Chanukah and on Purim one says "and for the miracles and for the salvation and for the mighty deeds and for the deliverances and for the wonders that You performed for our forefathers in those days at this time",

and in both one also says the content

(not the exact letters,

rather the content)

of "to give thanks and to praise Your great Name."

But nevertheless there is a fundamental difference between them –

that Chanukah was connected with the souls of Jews,

and Purim –

with the bodies of Jews.

[Continuing the discussion regarding the lesson from Purim – he said:]

And the lesson from Purim is an eternal lesson,

even regarding the eternity of all the rest of the Torah and commandments,

which certainly are all eternal

(as explained in Tanya, chapter 17),

but nevertheless our Sages, of blessed memory, say ¹³¹ that "all the festivals will be nullified in the future except for Purim"

[with one exception –

"even Yom Kippur",

but according to all opinions it stands regarding Purim],

and as the Rambam rules in Halacha ¹³²

[which is also "known to all",

as the Rambam writes in his introduction to his book,

that he writes "laws that are clear to the small and to the great"],

that "the days of Purim will not be nullified, as it is said ¹³³ 'and these days of Purim shall not pass from among the Jews, and their memory shall not cease from their seed.'"

And the difference between Purim and the rest of the festivals is not merely a difference for the future

(when "all the festivals will be nullified" except for Purim) –

rather a difference in the essence of the festivals,

as they were originally given:

all the festivals were originally given in a manner that their strength and eternity is "like a candle in the daylight" ¹³⁴ relative to the revelation of the future ¹³⁵;

but Purim inherently possesses from the outset a strength and eternity that shines even when the revelation of the future ¹³⁵ exists.

[Conclusion of the sicha:]

And may it be His will that from this discussion in all matters it should come down into actuality –

that "on the first of Adar they announce about the shekalim" ¹³⁶,

with which the communal offerings are purchased ¹³⁷,

For which one must have the third Beis HaMikdash,

"a house...

prepared for offering the offerings in it" ¹³⁸,

"and there we will offer before You etc. according to the commandment of Your will" ¹³⁹,

and before this –

one must have the half-shekel from all Jews,

with which the communal offerings are purchased,

including the daily offering,

for if there is no participation of the public in this, it is not a daily offering,

It is therefore understood,

that all these things must be speedily in our days, literally,

for they are dependent on each other,

And all the more so that before this there must be the matter of repentance –

as per the ruling of the Rambam

(in today's lesson ¹⁴⁰)

"the Torah promised that in the end Israel will repent etc. and immediately they are redeemed",

Therefore the matter of repentance must already be now,

for according to all opinions and according to all signs at the end of tractate Sotah, we already stand at the end of the exile.

And if there are Jews who cry out that they are not connected to this

(repentance) –

this is only from the aspect of the revelation of their soul,

but from the aspect of their body and the mazal within the soul it has a connection to all Jews,

"known to all",

"from youth to elder, infants and women",

including the smallest of the small,

even a one-day-old infant.

[Regarding the commandment of "gather the entire people, the men, the women, and the infants" ¹⁴¹ –

there could possibly be those who argue ¹⁴²,

that this means specifically infants who have reached the age of ascending to Jerusalem for the Festival,

but not specifically a one-day-old infant.

And similarly regarding other matters –

one finds that with infants and minors it means until they reach the age of bar mitzvah,

or the age of education,

or the age of walking,

but not specifically a one-day-old infant;

But the decree of Haman –

and consequently the salvation and miracle of Purim –

was "from youth to elder, infants and women",

including literally a one-day-old infant

[and a fetus –

is indeed "a fetus is the thigh of its mother" ¹⁴³,

a part of its mother;

but as soon as it emerges into the world as an independent entity,

the decree of Haman included it as well].

And may it be His will,

as mentioned,

that speedily in our days, literally, and in our immediate time

(in the language of the Targum)

we should offer the communal offerings that are purchased with the half-shekel in the third Beis HaMikdash,

"and they shall make Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst",

after there is the "take for Me – for My name – a portion",

as we will soon read in the Minchah prayer,

and from the pleasure of pleasures.