English translation — ש"פ תרומה, ז' אדר

We must add an explanation regarding what was discussed earlier,

that on one hand "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary" is one commandment among the 613 commandments,

and on the other hand - this is a general commandment,

which includes within itself all the commandments:

In the totality of the Torah we find two matters:

On one hand, all the details in the Torah are equal - they all have the same force. And in the language of the Rambam¹ - that in the Torah "there is no difference between...

and the name of his wife Mehetabel²...

and between I am Hashem your God³ etc.",

and therefore,

"one who says that the Torah is not from Hashem, even one verse, even one word...

he is a denier of the Torah"⁴. As this is also expressed in halachah - that a scribe must write every letter in a Torah scroll,

because every letter is necessary for the fitness of the Torah scroll⁵ - and no distinction as to which letter it is.

And so too regarding the Oral Torah - every detail within it has the full force of the Torah,

which was given at the Giving of the Torah,

without distinction as to which detail of the Torah it is.

On the other hand, every detail in the Torah has its own particular content and level in holiness:

There is a difference between the level in holiness and the intention of the scribe at the time he writes the Name Havayah

(the Explicit Name,

the Essential Name and the Unique Name⁶)

and the other Names that may not be erased⁷ compared to when he writes the other words in the Torah;

And likewise there is a difference between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah and what a veteran student will innovate in the future

(even though that which is [innovated] was given to Moses at Sinai⁸).

And likewise regarding the commandments of the Torah⁹:

On one hand, all 613 commandments have a common denominator - that each one of them is one commandment of the 613 commandments equally with all other commandments,

and that this commandment is lacking from the completeness of the 613 commandments. On the other hand, however, there is a difference between commandments - between a particular commandment,

and a general commandment,

which is connected with other commandments,

between a most general commandment like "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary" which is connected with all commandments,

as above.

And as explained in Chassidus⁹,

that commandments are the Supernal Will,

and in the Will no changes are applicable,

and every detail of this Will,

even the smallest detail,

pertains to the fulfillment of the Will just like the greatest principle,

both are an equal part of the Supernal Will. And at the time one lacks a detail of this Will - one touches the entire matter - the Supernal Will.

On the other hand, however, it is understood,

that there is a difference between the will of the king regarding his life and the will of the king regarding his servants and the like.

That is, that there is a will that is connected with a most general matter that is more pertinent to the essence of the king,

and a will that is not connected with such a general matter.

From this is also understood the manner in which one must fulfill the commandments:

Even though there are differences between commandments - between general commandments and particular commandments,

and one must know about these differences,

and fulfill each commandment according to its particular matter as it distinguishes itself from all other commandments - nevertheless, together with this one must fulfill each commandment with full intensity,

without looking whether this is a light commandment or a severe commandment.

That is, that when one fulfills a particular commandment,

a particular commandment in its particular time and place - one must invest in it completely with full intensity exactly as when one fulfills a most general commandment.

This is truly a matter that is understood and simple - but since a question can arise that the focus on one commandment can interfere with the focus on a second commandment - therefore one must clarify,

that the focus and intensity on one commandment must and may not interfere with the focus and intensity of another commandment.

Furthermore:

The question is not from an undesirable nature,

but from the nature of man as the Most High created him,

and furthermore - even as this is according to Torah. As one will [see] in practice,

that at the time one is invested in fulfilling a particular commandment, this interferes with fulfilling another commandment at the time of the act.

This is indeed a wonder - how can one commandment interfere with a second commandment - but such is the reality as the Most High created.

For example:

When one is in the midst of clarifying a halachic matter according to the law¹⁰,

in order to rule on a question—during that time one cannot learn or fulfill another mitzvah.

And conversely:

When one is engaged faithfully in communal needs

(as it should be according to Torah)

—during that time one cannot learn Torah or fulfill the mitzvah of prayer. Therefore, engaging in communal needs overrides Torah study

(all the more so since it overrides the recitation of Shema)

¹¹. And when one is involved in communal needs as required,

or in another mitzvah—it affects human nature such that he forgets about another matter. As is human nature according to Torah, that the passage of time does not cause forgetfulness

(after twelve months, etc.¹²).

And therefore one must indeed ensure that the focus on one mitzvah does not interfere with the focus that must be present when the time comes to fulfill another mitzvah.

And all the more so when it concerns a general mitzvah,

such as "Make for Me a Sanctuary"—the precaution must be taken,

that this must not and should not interfere with fulfilling the other mitzvos, each in its proper time, etc.

For example:

When a particular day arrives—one must then recite the song of that specific day and not the song of another day,

and so forth.

Thus the question is:

How can one indeed "descend" from the storm of a general mitzvah and fulfill a particular mitzvah at a particular time, etc.?

We see a tangible example of this from human life:

Although a person's main focus is on his general life

(as above regarding the will in the king's life),

or on another general and essential matter—nevertheless we see,

that when he becomes thirsty, he runs to seek a drink of water,

and in order to drink, he must first recite a blessing if he is a Jew

(and a non-Jew is indeed exempt from a blessing,

but he too must know that the water comes from the One Above,

of Whom it is said "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"¹³—as is known, faith in Hashem is one of the seven mitzvos of the children of Noah¹⁴,

which a Jew must influence upon the children of Noah,

according to the ruling of the Rambam¹⁵).

Yet the question remains:

How is it indeed possible,

that one mitzvah

(and all the more so a general mitzvah)

should not interfere with the fulfillment of another mitzvah?

The answer to this is:

Since the One Above demands this of a Jew,

and "I do not ask... except according to their ability"¹⁶—He has certainly given the abilities to fulfill this to the utmost perfection.

From this we have an answer to many who have become confused,

and not only in thought but also in deed,

(and there is no need to elaborate on a matter that is contrary to good and pleasure—a matter of confusion)—regarding the aforementioned proposal that the main service of this year should be in the general matter of "Make for Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst,"

making every home a "miniature Sanctuary,"

a house of Torah,

prayer, and acts of kindness:

Although this is indeed a general service,

and the primary service of this year—it is nevertheless understood and simple—and it is even astonishing that one needs to clarify—that this must not be,

and indeed it is not,

any contradiction to the efforts in the other "campaigns" in which we have been recently engaged.

That is to say,

that one must indeed act in this general matter of "Make for Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst" with full storm,

as the primary service of this year—but together with this, it must not diminish, heaven forbid, the storm and beauty in the other mitzvos and "campaigns,"

rather, just as one acts in "Make for Me a Sanctuary" with a storm,

so too must one fulfill every particular "campaign" in its particular matter with the full storm,

and not only in general—but to invest oneself in it in particular.

For example:

When it is required to act in the "Campaign for Jewish Education"—one must do so with full completeness,

and not only in general,

but to invest oneself in all the details thereof;

And likewise the "Tefillin Campaign"—one must speak with others to put on tefillin,

and with the details thereof—that he must subjugate his mind and heart¹⁷, etc.

And likewise—immediately upon waking from his sleep, he must say "Modeh Ani"¹⁸,

and put on a tallis katan,

and so forth.

And regarding this, concerning matters that are time-bound,

and at this time—the matter of "Mivtza Purim"—one must indeed be involved in this with full force.

And regarding this, other time-bound matters—they have

(at this time)

precedence over other matters.

Including also the time-bound matters—due to the fact that Jews have chosen a specific time,

on Motzaei Shabbat this or on Sunday and the following days,

to perform various activities and gatherings.

And regarding this, also concerning the entirety of our generation and this place—it is a time-bound matter to fulfill the directives and enactments of the Rebbe, my father-in-law, the Rebbe, the Nasi of our generation,

such as the enactment to study Chumash, Tehillim, Tanya,

and regarding this, his other directives

(including those connected to a specific time—like "Mivtza Purim" ¹⁹ as above)

—as he explains in his talks, and in brief and by allusion

(at least)

—in his discourses.

And in more detail—these two matters also exist in the service of "Make for Me a Sanctuary" itself:

Although "Make for Me a Sanctuary" means one Sanctuary, nevertheless the "Make for Me a Sanctuary" consists of many details and parts,

and among them,

from the lowest to the highest

(among the "ten levels of holiness") ²⁰:

the Rampart,

the Women's Courtyard,

the Courtyard of Israel,

the Courtyard of the Priests,

between the Entrance Hall and the Altar,

the Sanctuary,

the Holy of Holies.

And regarding this, in the Tabernacle:

the Courtyard,

the Tent of Meeting,

the Holy of Holies.

That is:

On one hand, all parts of the Tabernacle and Temple are part of one

(commandment to Me)

"Make for Me a Sanctuary",

where "I will dwell among them" is fulfilled;

On the other hand, however, each part of the Tabernacle has its level in holiness and its specific function that distinguishes it from the other parts in effecting "I will dwell among them",

each part of the Tabernacle and Temple effects a different detail in this "I will dwell among them" in the Sanctuary.

From this, two things are understood:

Although there are different levels of holiness in the Tabernacle, they are nevertheless parts of the same Tabernacle,

and each part pertains to the completeness of the entire Tabernacle,

so that "I will dwell among them" should be in its fullness.

But on the other hand:

Although all parts of the Tabernacle are part of one Tabernacle and Temple, each part has its specific function

(and level in holiness)

that distinguishes it from the other parts,

and specifically through this, the particular part effects its portion in building the Tabernacle and Temple,

where "I will dwell among them" is fulfilled.

Based on this, one will understand a lesson from today's portion of Chumash—the seventh reading until the end of Parshat Terumah:

After the portion

(in the seventh reading)

speaks about the command to make the Tabernacle

(the Holy of Holies and the Tent of Meeting)

and the vessels of the Tabernacle,

it begins to speak in this portion of Chumash about the Courtyard of the Tabernacle—"And you shall make the Courtyard of the Tabernacle" ²¹.

And the matter in this:

The Courtyard of the Tabernacle is a domain in itself;

and an intermediary between the Tent of Meeting and the desert,

just as every courtyard is an intermediary between the house and the public domain,

to enter the house from the public domain one must pass through the courtyard ²²;

and this also adds to the protection of the house ²³.

And its spiritual meaning and in the service of Hashem:

Although there was the command to make in the desert the Tent of Meeting and the vessels of the Tabernacle within it

(as discussed in the preceding portions of Chumash)

—nevertheless, the desert remained a "desert of the peoples" ²⁴,

"a serpent, a fiery serpent, and a scorpion, and a thirsty land where there is no water" ²⁵.

That is, there are two domains:

the domain of holiness—the Tent of Meeting

(and the vessels within it),

and the domain of impurity—the "desert of the peoples".

And for this there was the command "And you shall make the Courtyard of the Tabernacle"—which refers to the domain of the permitted,

which is an intermediary between the domain of holiness

(the Tent of Meeting)

and the domain of impurity

(the desert of the peoples),

but together with this, the Courtyard is also a part of the Tabernacle.

That is, it is indeed a level

(in holiness)

lower than the Tent of Meeting—the level of the permitted,

but this itself becomes a part of holiness,

the Tabernacle,

it removes the worldly matters from under the dominion of the impure forces

(the desert of the peoples)

and makes them into matters of holiness

(the Tabernacle).

And in service—the service of "All your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven" ²⁶,

and "In all your ways know Him" ²⁶ *,

which is an intermediary between the service with matters of holiness,

the study of Torah and fulfillment of the commandments

(the Tent of Meeting)

and forbidden matters

(the desert of the peoples):

On one side, this is "your deeds" and "your ways"

(matters of the mundane)

- but this very thing is done "for the sake of Heaven" and "know Him."

The courtyard

(the intermediate between the Tent of Meeting and the wilderness)

is, for example, the concept of Havdalah between Shabbat and weekday:

Havdalah is an intermediate between Shabbat and weekday - one cannot go from Shabbat into the weekday unless one first makes Havdalah,

"Who distinguishes between holy and profane"

(similar to how one cannot go out from a house into the public domain unless one goes through the courtyard),

but the essence of Havdalah is not only to distinguish between holy and profane,

but to draw down from the holiness of Shabbat into the weekdays that follow:

On weekdays, the service is with "your deeds"

(which includes the matter of speech in mundane matters),

which one may not do before Havdalah - it must be "Who distinguishes between holy and profane";

but on the other hand - specifically through the Havdalah between holy and profane, holiness is drawn from Shabbat into the weekday,

all the more so and how much more so:

If from Shabbat all the days are blessed

(the weekdays of the following week),

a blessing from Shabbat in mundane matters - how much more so that all the days are sanctified from the holiness of Shabbat *.

And in service - the concept of "all your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven",

"mundane matters done in purity of the holy."

And although there is a distinction between the service of the courtyard of the Mishkan and that of the Tent of Meeting - one must do both matters with full vigor and completeness,

both being parts of "Make for Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst."

From this there is also a lesson regarding the service of every Jewish home as a "miniature Sanctuary",

"and I will dwell in their midst, within each and every one",

a house of Torah,

prayer and acts of kindness:

Although it was specifically emphasized that children should acquire this through their own siddur, Chumash

(or another book of Torah), and

(to distinguish)

a charity box

(and similarly it should be for adults)

- this does not mean that the entire service of making the home a "miniature Sanctuary" consists solely of this:

In order for there to be a complete Mishkan, there must be not only a Holy of Holies and a Tent of Meeting

(and their vessels),

but also a courtyard. And in our case:

not only a siddur,

Chumash and charity box - holy matters

(analogous to the Tent of Meeting),

but also the other parts of the house which consist of mundane matters

(analogous to the courtyard),

and from these too one must make a Sanctuary for G-d - "all your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven" and "in all your ways know Him."

And as discussed above,

that although there is a difference in the level of holiness between the "Tent of Meeting" and the "courtyard of the Mishkan",

and likewise all other differences between various matters of service,

and ostensibly one mitzvah

(and all the more so a general mitzvah)

can hinder the fulfillment of another mitzvah - one can and must do every single detail with full vigor,

and one has all the necessary powers for this.

And in addition to this - it becomes easier to do through the fact that one influences children,

which then also comes to the influencers,

and on the contrary:

An influencer must stand on a higher level than the one influenced,

he must do more than what he demands from the one influenced,

as discussed many times.

And may it be His will that from speaking about the matter of "Make for Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst" - each and every one should bring it down in actual deed,

the deed is the main thing.

And these are not things that one says on his own,

but they are taken from books,

and only "I am providing you a source reference",

and everyone can look in and see what is written,

and if he does not know where - he can ask his rabbi,

rosh yeshiva,

mentor,

or "make for yourself a rabbi" - they will surely tell him,

and especially since it concerns simple matters - which everyone can find on his own.

And may it be His will that the service should further hasten "Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust",

and the three shepherds among them,

and Moses our teacher at their head,

in addition to the fact that Moses is "the first redeemer is the final redeemer."

And especially since we stand on the eve of the 7th of Adar,

the birthday and day of passing of Moses our teacher,

and in the time of "Rava d'Ravin" on Shabbat,

when we say "Your righteousness is righteous",

regarding the righteous ones who passed away at that time,

Moses etc.

We go together with Moses our teacher

(first redeemer)

and with the final redeemer,

Moses our righteous one, in the future redemption.

And then all the questions will be answered,

including the question of how the statement "Your righteousness is righteous" on Shabbat regarding the passing of the righteous fits - when "there is no sorrow with her."

And also the well-known question on the words of our Sages, of blessed memory,

that on the day of his passing, Moses our teacher wrote thirteen Torah scrolls - how could he do this on the Sabbath day. And the question is also according to the commentators that Moses only finished writing the Torah scrolls on that day - because on Shabbat one may not write even a single letter.

All the more so according to the Masoretic texts that the last letter of the Torah

(the lamed of "Israel")

is a large letter.

And we will see in the revelation "And you shall command the children of Israel" - the aspect of "you" of Moses our teacher,

i.e., the essence of Moses,

and how he is "shall command" from the term connection and bonding - he connects with Jews.

And we will all go together and we will all dance together - in the land of Israel,

"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 itself - in Jerusalem, the holy city,

and to the Temple Mount,

and to the Third Holy Temple,

and in our actual immediate time,

simply,

and with the utmost simplicity.

Discourse (like a talk)

beginning "And they shall make Me a sanctuary etc."

At the beginning of the discourse, he mentioned the discourse beginning "And they shall make Me a sanctuary" from the year 1944.

And he said about this:]

The reason why the year is mentioned - is not to demonstrate erudition,

because for this no erudition is needed,

for when one sits in one's room one can look it up,

or ask another.

Rather, the year is mentioned

(1944)

- so that one should look inside there,

and letters make wise,

one will see the exact language of the Rebbe - because for several reasons,

one does not repeat the exact language of the Rebbe,

and even not the language of the Rebbe in general,

therefore one mentions that this is the discourse from the year 1944,

perhaps this will cause that one or two will look inside there...].

It is also customary to connect the Shabbat gathering with a matter in Rashi on the weekly portion,

a matter in the notes of the father on the Zohar of the weekly portion,

and a matter in today's lesson of Rambam.

Regarding Rashi, we will dwell on several matters that were proposed

(in the booklets)

- on the verses where the items that one must donate for the Tabernacle are listed.

A) On "and fine linen" Rashi explains:

"it is flax." They asked:

If Rashi needs to explain that "fine linen" means "flax" - why did he not explain it on the verse that appears earlier regarding Joseph "and he clothed him in garments of fine linen"?

B) On "and acacia wood" Rashi explains:

"And from where did they have [it] in the desert,

Rabbi Tanchuma explained: Jacob our father foresaw with divine inspiration that Israel would build a Tabernacle in the desert and he brought cedars to Egypt and planted them and commanded his sons to take them with them when they left Egypt."

They asked:

What is the question "And from where did they have

(acacia wood)

in the desert" - Jews in the desert were near settlements,

and they bought items there from the merchants of the nations of the world,

could they not also buy acacia wood? Moreover:

Since there is a simple explanation that Jews bought acacia wood from the merchants of the nations of the world - why must one come to such a novelty,

that 210 years earlier Jacob planted cedars in Egypt for the Jews?!

Additionally, there is also a "strong question"

(on which we did not dwell)

- on the fact that Rashi brings the explanation in the name of its speaker - "Rabbi Tanchuma explained":

It is an unusual thing for Rashi to bring an explanation in the name of its speaker,

and he only does so when it is relevant to the explanation of the verse. Here the question arises:

What relevance is there in the simple meaning of the verse that "Rabbi Tanchuma" explained the explanation?

Another

(subtle)

precise point in this:

The usual language in such a case is "Rabbi Tanchuma expounded" and the like,

or "Rabbi Tanchuma says" and the like.

Why does Rashi write here the language "Rabbi Tanchuma explained" - where "explained" simply means the simple explanation. And prima facie, the place here is for "expounded",

that it is a matter of homiletical interpretation

(that settles the simple meaning of the verse)?

C) On "tachashim" Rashi explains:

"A species of animal,

and it existed only temporarily,

and it had many colors,

therefore the Targum renders it 'sasgona' because it rejoices in its colors."

One must understand:

Granted, the reason why Rashi explains that this is "a type of living creature" - is understandable,

because the Ben Chamesh had not learned the word "Tachashim" anywhere, since it does not appear in any other place

(except for "and Tachash skins" which appears in Yechezkel,

which the Ben Chamesh had not yet learned,

and also there there is a discussion whether it refers to the "Tachashim" of our portion or not).

Consequently, the Ben Chamesh L'Mikra asks what is this "Tachashim",

whether it is a bird,

an animal,

a living being,

or something else? Therefore Rashi needs to explain that this is "a type of living creature";

It is also understandable why Rashi explains that "it was only temporary" - because such a creature will not be found anywhere.

[And that which it says in Yechezkel "and Tachash skins" - the explanation of this is *:

namely, also in the generation of the wilderness according to that time];

But why does Rashi continue to explain "and it had many colors" - what is the practical difference?

And why does he then add further that "therefore it is translated S'segona because it rejoices and its colors" - is it not Rashi's purpose to explain Targum Onkelos?

D) On "and Argaman" Rashi explains:

"Dyed wool from a type of dye whose name is Argaman".

The question arises:

The Rambam and the Ra'avad explain that "Argaman is the wool dyed red". Since this is a matter of reality - why does Rashi not explain thus,

and only writes "dyed wool from a type of dye whose name is Argaman",

and does not say which color it is;

can one not say that here there is a dispute in reality - that the Rambam and Ra'avad hold that it is "red" and Rashi holds otherwise?

And as will be explained below.

In the father's notes on the Zohar, he addresses that which the Zohar says,

that Rashbi,

R' Elazar,

R' Abba and R' Yosi were together,

and "said to him

(Rashbi)

to R' Yosi: You, whose words were not heard among us on this day, you shall be the beginning to illuminate the night".

And the father explains:

"And the reason for this matter itself is why did R' Yosi not expound during the day as they did, the three of them during the day,

and now R' Shimon said to him that R' Yosi should begin to expound at night,

it is because Rashbi and R' Elazar and R' Abba are the aspect of Chabad,

Rashbi is Da'at and R' Elazar and R' Abba are Chochmah and Binah,

and R' Yosi is the aspect of Malchut, and as is also explained elsewhere the proof from the words of the Mishnah "Yosi shall strike Yosi

(the numerical value of Yosi equals the numerical value of Elokim)

" in gematria Elokim,

the aspect of Malchut] etc.,

behold, Chabad are the aspect of day,

and Malchut is the aspect of night,

therefore the three of them, Rashbi and R' Elazar and R' Abba, expounded during the day,

according to their measure, the measure of day,

and afterwards at night R' Yosi needed to expound according to his measure, which is the measure of night, Malchut".

Here arises a tremendous difficulty:

Torah study is an obligation at every moment upon every Jew,

as the Alter Rebbe rules in Hilchos Talmud Torah,

that "anyone who is able to engage in Torah and does not engage, etc.",

and as is known the great severity in this, as the Alter Rebbe brings at the end of the first page of the Tanya.

All the more so when it concerns Tannaim,

and all the more so Rashbi and his colleagues whose "Torah is their occupation".

And accordingly, it is completely incomprehensible how it could be a reality that during the day R' Yosi did not say Torah,

and at night Rashbi and R' Elazar and R' Abba did not say Torah?!

And as will be explained below.

Today's Rambam lesson is at the end of Hilchos Tefillah and Birkas Kohanim, where it says on the chapter headings within the laws - "Hilchos Nesias Kapayim" - and the matter requires explanation],

at the beginning of Hilchos Tefillin.

At the conclusion of Hilchos Nesias Kapayim, the Rambam writes:

"And any Kohen who does not bless is not blessed, and any Kohen who blesses is blessed, as it is stated: 'And I will bless those who bless you'".

The source of the Rambam is in the Gemara,

but with a changed order:

In the Gemara the order is "any Kohen who blesses is blessed, and any Kohen who does not bless is not blessed",

whereas the Rambam changes the order and writes first the negative and then the positive. And one can say the reason for this - in order to conclude with a good thing,

as we see in many places in the Rambam that he strives to conclude with good. And even though, regardless, he would still conclude with the proof from the verse which is a good thing - "as it is stated: 'And I will bless those who bless you'",

nevertheless the Rambam also wants to conclude the halacha of the Oral Torah with a good thing - "any Kohen who blesses is blessed".

However, there is a difficulty here - both on the Gemara and on the Rambam:

Since when one says "every kohen who blesses is blessed" - then the negation is already understood by itself that "every kohen who does not bless is not blessed",

then why does one need to explicitly express this - what is being taught?

The question is even stronger in the Gemara,

because there the order is that it begins with "every kohen who blesses is blessed",

consequently the negation is already understood.

In contrast, in the Rambam where he begins with "every kohen who does not bless is not blessed" - one does not yet know the obligation.

But in truth this is also forced in the Rambam,

because immediately afterwards one sees that he says

(regarding this same matter)

"every kohen who blesses is blessed" - consequently if he only said this, would one not already have known the negation that "every kohen who does not bless is not blessed"?

And the explanation of this must lie in the clear and lucid language of the Rambam or in what the Rambam writes elsewhere

(based on which several explanations that the commentators wish to say fall away).

And in our case - one has the possibility to look both in the commentators of the Shas and the commentators of the Ein Yaakov,

and in the commentators of the Rambam,

and since the source for our Sages of blessed memory is from "I will bless those who bless you" one should also look in the commentators of the Scripture

(on the verse),

including the book "Torah Sheleimah",

where he brings down all the sources of our Sages of blessed memory on the verse "I will bless those who bless you".

And as will be explained further.

One will also dwell on a matter in the beginning of the laws of prayer:

The Rambam writes there:

"It is a positive commandment to pray every day, as it is said 'and you shall serve the Lord your God etc.'".

The question of the commentators is well known:

From where does the Rambam derive that this positive commandment is "every day" - in the verse it only says "and you shall serve the Lord your God" and no time is mentioned alongside it?

And one answers:

"This service

(and you shall serve the Lord your God)

must be every day,

for if it is not every day, one might come to say that it should be once in all his days,

and this is something that reason cannot tolerate,

and therefore necessarily the obligation is to pray every day".

But with all due respect etc. - this is indeed forced that this is written in the commentators - but this is not the oil for learning,

and when one does not understand, one must say that I do not understand;

how can one say that there are several important commandments that are not every single day,

"to say that it is once in all his days" - what kind of proof is that?!

Who is bothered that one would say that this commandment is "once in all his days",

there are several important commandments that are not every single day,

but only from time to time - like the commandment of Kiddush Levanah,

which is only once a month,

and so forth.

And likewise regarding the service - the service of the offerings - and one says that there are offerings that are not brought every day - like the additional offerings,

and individual offerings. So what is the compulsion that "and you shall serve etc."

(prayer)

is every day?

Although the Rambam writes further that "the obligation of this commandment is thus etc. that one asks for his needs that he requires" - and most people have needs every day - but there is a case of a person who does not have any needs every day,

for example:

a son-in-law living on support has no worries about livelihood and needs for which he must ask every day - because if he needs something,

he goes to his father-in-law and knocks on the table and tells him:

Listen - I took your daughter and this was already determined forty days before the formation of the fetus *,

consequently "the dowry is due",

give me the dowry,

and certainly if the father-in-law is also wealthy - he gives him all his needs.

And likewise children before marriage - one sees that the parents provide them with all their needs,

and they do not need to pray for this every day. So too they can fulfill the commandment of "and you shall serve the Lord your God" - through prayer for matters of health and so forth,

but this does not have to be every day].

And based on this it turns out,

that there is no proof from the fact that prayer is "one asks for his needs that he requires",

that this must be every day - because there are Jews who do not need to pray every day for their needs,

as above,

but rather for them prayer is for requesting needs from time to time,

once a year and so forth.

Consequently - the aforementioned question remains:

What is the compulsion for the Rambam that the commandment of prayer is every day?

And as will be explained further.

Continuing the above discussion regarding the Rambam and the matter of prayer - there are those who have provided drinks for various reasons in connection with a completion of the book of the Rambam,

or with a dedication of a Chabad house,

"Mikdash Me'at",

Beit Torah,

prayer and Gemach.

They should now go up and say "L'Chaim",

and as is the custom lately - to announce all these details in connection with their events,

and also to invite those assembled here - and through this to include in this all those assembled here - at least a spiritual inclusion,

and especially since a part of those assembled,

as representatives of all those assembled,

will also participate physically.

After the distribution of bottles of drink and the announcements, the Rebbe Shlita began a melody "Veharikoti Lachem Bracha".

The explanation in Rashi:

Rashi does not explain some of the thirteen items that the Jews brought for the Mishkan because their essential interpretation pertains to the plain meaning of Scripture,

but rather in order to explain from where the Jews obtained these items in the desert:

Since it is written "Take for Me a portion... this is the portion that you shall take from them",

it is understood that the Jews possessed the item,

and the command is only regarding the taking,

that they should take the items

(which the Jews already possessed from before),

because if the Jews did not possess them,

the command would have had to be worded in another language,

in a language that the Jews should first acquire the items and then give them for the Mishkan;

and since the Jews were then in the desert

(not in a settled place)

where all these items are not found

(which were needed for the Mishkan)

- one must say that the Jews brought with them all these items,

therefore Rashi must explain from where the Jews obtained them.

And accordingly one will understand some of Rashi's interpretations on the thirteen items:

Granted, when it speaks about "gold and silver and copper" - the five-year-old student of Scripture knows from where the Jews had this in the desert,

because he previously learned that when leaving Egypt "they borrowed from the Egyptians vessels of silver and vessels of gold and garments".

And likewise he also understands from where the Jews had cattle, oxen and sheep for offerings in the Mishkan

(and for the burnt offerings which are discussed at the end of Parshat Mishpatim)

- because he learned that they left Egypt with "flocks and herds, very heavy livestock".

But when it then states "and blue and purple etc." - the five-year-old student of Scripture can have a question from where the Jews had this while being in the desert. Therefore Rashi explains:

"And blue - wool etc.",

"And purple - wool etc.",

because when the five-year-old learns that this is "wool",

he understands that the Jews had this from the sheep

(on which wool grows)

which they had with them.

Then Rashi explains "and linen - it is flax",

because since the five-year-old does not know the meaning of "linen",

it could be an item,

a new thing,

that was not in Egypt,

consequently the question arises from where the Jews had it.

Therefore Rashi explains that "it is flax" - he states the true interpretation of this,

but not because this pertains to the essential interpretation of "linen",

but rather in order to explain that this was in Egypt,

(only)

an item that the Jews brought with them from Egypt.

And based on this, it is understandable why Rashi explains this specifically here in our portion and not earlier by Joseph.

("And he clothed him in garments of fine linen"):

If Rashi's intention had been to explain to the five-year-old the meaning of "fine linen" in the verse, he would indeed have needed to say this earlier by Joseph;

but since Rashi's intention is not to give the explanation of the word, rather to explain from where the Jews had this,

therefore this is only here in our portion,

where one needs to explain from where they had this;

however, by "And he clothed him in garments of fine linen" there is no relevance in the plain meaning of the explanation of "garments of fine linen,"

from what material the garments were made

(it only matters that they were important garments),

therefore Rashi does not explain it there. Just as he does not explain regarding "the second chariot" how many wheels the chariot had, whether eight wheels,

six wheels,

four wheels or two wheels

(as was the reality at that time)

because in this there is no relevance in the plain meaning.

The reason why Rashi does not explain that "argaman" is "wool dyed red"

(according to the explanation of the Rambam and the Ra'avad),

rather "wool dyed with a type of dye whose name is argaman" is because a verse later states "and ram skins dyed red"

("they were dyed red, etc."),

so if "argaman" means "wool dyed red,"

the verse should have used the term "red" just as the verse later uses "dyed red"

(or "and scarlet,"

which means a red color);

from this it is proven

(according to the plain meaning)

that this does not mean "wool dyed red."

And what color it is is not relevant to the plain meaning of the verse,

in the plain meaning it is only relevant that this is "wool dyed with a type of dye whose name is argaman"

(but not "red" as discussed above,

and in the plain meaning the precise explanation of this is not relevant,

rather from where the Jews had this. And that Rashi explains by saying that this is "wool dyed etc." consequently one understands that they had this from the sheep,

as above.

The explanation of this commentary on "tachashim":

It was discussed earlier that the reason why Rashi needs to explain "tachashim,"

is because the five-year-old does not know what this is

(he has never learned such a word anywhere.

As above),

therefore Rashi explains "a species of animal." And since such an animal will not be found anywhere, therefore Rashi writes "it existed only temporarily."

With this Rashi also explains from where the Jews had this in the desert:

This was indeed a special miracle for that time,

for the Tabernacle

(but afterwards there is indeed no existence of such an animal,

the animal was not among those that "Moses taught them etc." and says "this is the animal which you may eat etc.").

However, with this the question arises:

Why was it necessary to make such a miracle? From this it is necessary to say that "tachashim" had in them a special matter that was needed specifically for the Tabernacle.

Therefore Rashi continues to explain the special matter

(because of which they made such a miracle):

"And it had many colors." What is the virtue of "many colors" that one needs to make a special miracle because of it? The five-year-old understands this:

He knows that in the Tabernacle everything needed to be "for honor and for beauty." And he also knows that an item that has "many colors" is very beautiful and contributes to "for honor and for beauty." He understands why for this time the miracle was that they should have specifically "many colors" because "many colors" contributes to the honor and beauty of the Tabernacle.

And Rashi continues "therefore the Targum renders it 'sasgona' which rejoices and prides itself in its colors" because this further brings out the novelty of the "many colors" beyond a five-year-old, to the extent that "it rejoices and prides itself in these colors."

And in addition to this:

The very novelty of "tachashim" compels saying that the tachashim had in them a special virtue that was relevant to the Tabernacle;

but there is no hint in the plain meaning as to what this virtue consisted of. The virtue could have been that "it had many colors,"

or that it had a shiny skin and the like.

Therefore Rashi brings the Targum, "sasgona etc.,"

which brings out the virtue that the tachashim had.

28. According to this explanation in Rashi on "tachashim" - one will understand another thing:

Rashi indeed cannot explain that "argaman" means "wool dyed red"

(as the interpretation of the Rambam and the Rabad),

because in the verse it says "me'adamim",

as above;

but why does Rashi interpret as the interpretation of the Rabad,

that "argaman" is "woven from two kinds or from three colors

(and therefore it is called argaman)"?

The explanation in this is:

If this is an "argaman"

(that it is woven from two kinds or three colors)

- it would not be understandable the superiority and novelty in this,

because it is like a candle in the daytime relative to the superiority of "tachashim" which "had many colors"

(inherently),

and to such an extent that it is "fine linen and takes pride in these colors."

Therefore Rashi cannot explain that "argaman" according to the simple meaning means "woven from two kinds or from three colors."

From this one also sees the great precision of Rashi,

in his interpretation of "argaman" - not like the Rambam and not like the Rabad.

The explanation in the notes on the Zohar:

It is understood and simple,

that the story in the Zohar that Rashbi and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Abba said Torah by day and Rabbi Yosi said Torah by night - is certainly conducted according to halachah.

That is, that they certainly learned Torah by day and by night,

only at the times when they did not say Torah - they then indeed did not need to say Torah according to halachah.

For example:

Rabbi Yosi was a student of Rashbi,

and according to halachah when the teacher says Torah - the student must be silent and listen,

and not interrupt his teacher in the middle.

And likewise on the other side:

When Rashbi gave Rabbi Yosi permission to say Torah

(and on the contrary - he commanded him to say Torah,

"He said to him: 'Rabbi Yosi, since your words have not been heard today among us, you shall be the beginning to illuminate the night'")

- then Rashbi will not interrupt him in the middle according to halachah,

all the more so from this that "a sage does not enter into the words of his colleague",

certainly Rashbi.

Another example:

Since the halachah is "like Rav in prohibitions and the halachah is like Shmuel in civil laws

(in monetary matters)

" - it is understandable,

that when it comes to a question in prohibitions Shmuel must be silent and Rav must rule. And when it comes to a question in civil monetary laws - Rav must be silent and Shmuel must rule.

That is to say in our case:

Rashbi,

Rabbi Elazar,

Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Yosi - certainly learned and said Torah day and night. And they stopped only when according to halachah they needed to stop

(as above).

But this very thing - the times when each one said Torah in our case - was established in such a manner,

that Rashbi,

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Abba said Torah by day,

and Rabbi Yosi said Torah by night

(as Rashbi commanded him).

And this the father comes to explain in the note - why the difference in the time of saying Torah

(according to halachah)

was established specifically in such a manner,

that the three said Torah by day and Rabbi Yosi said Torah by night - because this corresponds to their level,

"The three of them, Rashbi and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Abba, expounded by day,

according to their measure, the measure of day,

and afterward by night Rabbi Yosi needs to expound according to his measure, which is the measure of night, from above."

The explanation in the Rambam at the end of the Laws of the Lifting of the Hands:

The novelty in "any priest who does not bless is not blessed" is - that a priest who does not bless is not blessed even from the priestly blessing for the entire congregation and for the entire world,

even for the people in the fields.

That is, that we are not speaking here about a case where there is no blessing in the world,

and one would need to arrive at a novelty that "any priest who blesses is blessed",

that through the fact that a priest blesses, a blessing is drawn forth that was not previously issued from the category of the fit),

rather we are speaking here about a priest who does not bless is not blessed,

rather we are speaking about a case where there is a blessing from the priests that already exists regardless in the world

(through the priestly blessing),

even for the people in the fields - nevertheless,

when it concerns a priest who does not bless,

he is not blessed even from the blessing that exists regardless,

because the priest did not make himself a vessel for this

(through his being a priest who blesses).

Based on this, the novelty and practical difference in the Gemara and Rambam) "any priest who does not bless is not blessed" is simply understood.

One does not need to arrive at the interpretation in the commentators,

that at the time of "he is not blessed" it is "automatically they became fortunate that they took hold as it is stated in Berachot 26a" - which the matter is not hinted at anywhere in the Gemara and Rambam.

Furthermore:

From this also emerges a practical difference - regarding a coerced Kohen:

If the Kohen who does not bless did not do it intentionally,

rather he was coerced,

he did not have time to wash his hands,

or he did not ascend to the platform at the proper time - one cannot say that therefore he should receive a benefit that "they became fortunate that they lived";

but he is "he is not blessed" - because he did not make a vessel for this

(which for a Kohen the vessel is - through his being a Kohen who blesses).

The explanation in the Rambam at the beginning of the Laws of Prayer - the proof of the Rambam that the commandment of "and you shall serve the Lord your God"

(the commandment of prayer)

is "every day":

Many commandments of the Torah that are stated in general language

(not specifying the time when the commandment applies)

are obligations every single day.

All the more so the commandment of "and you shall serve the Lord your God",

as it is understood from what is stated in the verse "and He will bless your bread and your water",

"and bread and water are needed every day,

if so prayer is also every day because you ask for your needs in it."

And even if there is a case where he does not need to ask every day for his needs

(like a son-in-law living on his in-laws' support,

or a child,

as above)

it implies that also he must pray every day because of the commandment of "and you shall serve the Lord your God",

which means every day.

We will also stop on a matter at the beginning of the Laws of Tefillin

(the conclusion of today's lesson):

In the enumeration of the commandments in the heading that comes before the Laws of Tefillin - the Rambam lists the commandments of Tefillin:

"1) To have Tefillin on the head,

2) To bind them on the hand."

And likewise is the order in his Book of Commandments and in the enumeration of the commandments before the Book of the Hand - first the Tefillin of the head and then the Tefillin of the hand.

The question is known:

Why does the Rambam list them in this order,

first Tefillin of the head and then Tefillin of the hand - when the order in the verse

(which the same Rambam himself brings in the Book of Commandments)

is "and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes" and so is also the order of placement - "when he places he places the hand Tefillin and afterwards he places the head Tefillin",

until "as long as they are between your eyes they shall be two". And from this there is also a practical difference in law:

If a question arises which Tefillin a scribe should finish first, the hand Tefillin or the head Tefillin - he must finish the hand Tefillin first,

because they must be put on immediately,

unlike if he finishes the head Tefillin first - there is no benefit,

because one cannot put them on until one has the hand Tefillin.

One cannot answer,

that the precedence of the head Tefillin over the hand Tefillin is because of the greater sanctity of the head Tefillin over the hand Tefillin - because this has no connection to the order of the enumeration of the commandments,

the order of the enumeration of the commandments is not according to the order of importance and sanctity of the commandments,

as we see in practice that many severe commandments come after light commandments. And especially in our case - that head Tefillin and then hand Tefillin is the opposite of the order in the verse.

And one can say the explanation in this - according to what the Rogatchover writes,

that regarding head Tefillin the commandment is "to be on the head",

that they should be placed on the head,

unlike regarding hand Tefillin the commandment is "to place them". As the Rogatchover explains this at length and brings proofs from several places in the Talmud

(but the essence of the distinction is explicit in the clear language (of the Rambam) at the beginning of the Laws of Tefillin:

to have Tefillin on the head,

to bind them on the hand].

What is the difference between them? If one placed Tefillin before daybreak

(which is not the time for Tefillin)

whether he must touch them during the day or not:

Regarding hand Tefillin - whose commandment is the action of "to bind them on the hand" - one must touch them,

because this is the action;

if he placed them at night he has not fulfilled the commandment;

unlike regarding head Tefillin - whose commandment is "to have Tefillin on the head" - one does not need to touch them,

because they are already placed on the head earlier.

According to this, there also emerges an advantage of tefillin shel rosh over tefillin shel yad,

that the fulfillment of the commandment of tefillin shel rosh is more continuous than the fulfillment of the commandment of tefillin shel yad - because the commandment of tefillin shel rosh is "the commandment is that it should be placed upon him,

and every moment he fulfills the commandment",

which in the time of the Mishnah and the Talmud was prominent the entire day

(although this is indeed not an obligation,

but there is a commandment in it,

in contrast to the commandment of tefillin shel yad, which he fulfills only at the time of placing).

And the continuity of tefillin shel rosh relative to tefillin shel yad - is connected with a precedence in time:

tefillin shel rosh that was delayed for one moment cannot be completed - because every moment it must be placed by itself,

in contrast to "to place them"

(regarding tefillin shel yad)

there is no difference which time of day one places them.

And according to this, one can explain why the Rambam precedes tefillin shel rosh before tefillin shel yad in the count of the commandments - because there is a rule that "that which is frequent and that which is not frequent, the frequent takes precedence",

and in our case the rule

(of the frequent takes precedence)

has a connection with a precedence in the count of the commandments

[because in the count of the commandments in general, several frequent commandments come after commandments that are not frequent, as above]

- because the commandment of "it shall be placed on the head" is connected with this, that the commandment of tefillin shel rosh is earlier in time relative to tefillin shel yad,

as above.

In addition to this,

that the commandments of tefillin shel rosh and tefillin shel yad are one matter,

and moreover - in several matters they are like one commandment,

"as long as they are between your eyes, they shall be two",

until that when one has only tefillin shel rosh

(and not tefillin shel yad)

one must place them by oneself.

And for the completeness of the matter - one must add,

that there is a version that the order of the Rambam is reversed:

first tefillin shel yad,

and then tefillin shel rosh.

And this is not a contradiction to the above explanation

(why tefillin shel rosh precedes tefillin shel yad)

- because the Rambam simply follows the order in the verse,

and does not wish to deviate from it.

And may it be His will that from this speaking about the commandment of tefillin,

which "the entire Torah is compared

(which primarily refers to commandments)

to tefillin",

which also has a special connection with Purim,

as our sages of blessed memory said on the verse "for the Jews there was light and joy and gladness and honor" - "light refers to Torah etc. honor refers to tefillin"

may it be "a connection of redemption to redemption",

the true and complete redemption through our righteous Messiah to the redemption of Purim - then in an automatic manner one will celebrate Purim,

and all the more so Passover,

in our holy land,

together with our righteous Messiah,

and out of joy and goodness of heart,

"and everlasting joy upon their heads".

The explanation in Rashi on the verse "and acacia wood" - and with an introduction of another difficulty in Rashi:

When Rashi comes to answer a difficulty in the plain meaning of the verse - his usual way is not to first ask the difficulty and then give an answer,

as the order is in the Gemara and Tosafot

("and if you say etc. one may say"),

rather he states the explanation at the outset,

it automatically removes all difficulties.

Because Rashi teaches a five-year-old the Scripture,

who is just beginning to learn Torah - consequently he does not yet have any difficulties.

In contrast, a five-year-old for the Oral Law etc.,

already has difficulties - the order of study with him is,

in the manner of asking a difficulty and giving an answer.

Accordingly, the question on this Rashi arises - why does Rashi here begin with a difficulty "and from where did they have them in the desert?",

and does not immediately say "Rabbi Tanchuma explained etc." - which then would seemingly lack nothing?

And the explanation in this, understood according to what is explained above,

that Rashi comes here to explain

(not the explanation of the words of the thirteen items, but rather)

"from where did they have them - all these things - in the desert",

Because from the command "and they shall take for Me a portion etc. which you shall take from them" it is understood,

that the Jews already possessed all these things,

and the command consists only of the taking - that one should take it from the Jews for building the Tabernacle.

Therefore Rashi begins with the difficulty "and from where did they have them in the desert" acacia wood - because this is the difficulty of a five-year-old for Scripture in this verse which Rashi comes to answer - "from where did they have them in the desert" the acacia wood.

And Rashi answers:

"Rabbi Tanchuma explained: our father Jacob foresaw with the holy spirit that Israel would build a Tabernacle in the desert and he brought cedars to Egypt and planted them and commanded his sons to take them with them when they left Egypt":

I cannot explain here that the Jews went to buy [them] from the merchants of the nations of the world, because from this command "and they shall take from them" it is understood,

that the Jews possessed all these items,

and if one would say that they first need to go buy acacia wood from the merchants of the nations of the world, then it would not be appropriate to say "you shall take from them,"

because the Jews would first need to go buy them,

it should have said "you shall command them" that they should procure acacia wood,

and so on.

Therefore Rashi must explain,

that the Jews already had the acacia wood from before this:

"Rabbi Tanchuma explained - this is one explanation of the homiletical interpretation,

but an explanation according to the simple meaning - that 'our father Jacob foresaw with the holy spirit that Israel would build a Tabernacle in the desert and he brought cedars to Egypt and planted them and commanded his sons to take them with them when they left Egypt.'

And based on this it is also understood,

that it is not the simple meaning that the Jews had only cedars,

as they are still together with the seeds,

or with the part of the earth where they grew

(as the Gemara enumerates the levels in this)

- because then they are not yet "acacia wood" which is completely ready to give and build the Tabernacle with it;

Rather they had prepared "acacia wood" that one can immediately use for building the Tabernacle,

and the only thing that still needs to be is the actual taking,

but were it not for this, all items are prepared

(because if not, there would have to be a command that one should prepare the items for the Tabernacle).

An ordained student can still ask however:

It is nevertheless a strange thing - that 210 years earlier Jacob should have prepared the cedars for the Tabernacle!

Therefore Rashi says the explanation in the name of its author - "Rabbi Tanchuma explained":

The name of the author of the statement "Tanchuma" from the word comforter

(and it is not necessary to discuss as it is stated regarding the name of Yeshayahu - the prophet of redemption - from the word salvation)

- alludes to the reason and the benefit in that Jacob "brought cedars to Egypt and planted them and commanded his sons to take them with them when they left Egypt" because "our father Jacob foresaw with the holy spirit that Israel would build a Tabernacle in the desert":

With this Jacob comforted the Jews in the Egyptian exile - that at the time of "and they embittered their lives with hard work etc.,"

and they had upon them "every son that is born you shall cast into the river" - they would have for themselves a physical thing that is even stronger for the promise of "I will surely bring you up also" - physical cedars - that would remind them that they would eventually leave the exile and build a Tabernacle in the desert.

As is evident from that which Rashi writes here that it was not merely "our father Jacob foresaw with the holy spirit etc.,"

rather "he commanded his sons to take them with them when they left Egypt,"

he revealed to them his holy spirit - that "Israel is destined to build a Tabernacle in the desert."

In order to comfort them in the Egyptian exile - that at the time they will torment themselves in the bitter exile,

they will show them:

Behold these physical cedars with which you will leave the Egyptian exile and take them with you to build a Tabernacle in the desert!

And this is in a manner of "Rabbi Tanchuma explained":

Since one finds oneself in exile in the simple sense,

one cannot give upon this a consolation according to the homiletical interpretation,

because then it is no consolation. Rather one must give a consolation in the simple sense - "explained

(and not "homiletically interpreted")

Rabbi Tanchuma",

"explained" - according to the simple meaning

(which also has the meaning - from the word spread out,

according to the explanation in "and the Baal Shem Tov explained")

- that they had physical cedars in the simple sense,

which Jews can see with physical eyes,

consequently this comforts them,

seeing with physical eyes the cedar wood with which they will leave the exile and build with it the Tabernacle in the desert.

With this however the question arises:

After Jacob comforted the Jews in the Egyptian exile and they subsequently left the exile in actuality and built the Tabernacle - how is it that there should be another exile;

what kind of consolation is this - when afterwards one goes further into exile?

Rashi already addressed this earlier:

Even though the Most High promised our father Jacob

(the same Jacob who brought and planted the cedars in the land of Egypt)

"And I will do good with you" - Jacob prayed "Save me, please, from the hand of my brother Esau,"

"My merits have diminished, for therefore I am afraid that since You promised me, I have become sullied with sin and it will cause me to be delivered into the hand of Esau."

And regarding this in our matter:

Even though this was a complete consolation - it can nevertheless be that afterward sin will cause there to be another exile.

Accordingly, the question turns the other way:

Since there is the concern that sin may cause - what kind of consolation is this?

This is also understandable from the incident with our father Jacob:

Even though Jacob indeed feared that sin may cause,

he nevertheless actually showed himself not so,

Rather "And You said, 'I will surely do good with you,'"

and in practice the Most High saved him from the hand of Esau.

And as the ruling of the Rambam,

that when there is a prophecy

(and promise)

for good - it must ultimately be fulfilled in practice,

because "Every good that God decrees, even conditionally, He does not retract."

All the more so now - after the Gemara has ruled that "All the ends have passed and the matter depends only on repentance,"

and since "All Israel are presumed to be fit," one has certainly already repented - consequently the question is not about the consolation of our father Jacob,

but rather the opposite:

How is it indeed that we are still in exile?!

"Until when" will the exile continue?!

We must indeed be Jews and answer them regarding this question.

And this cannot be an answer and consolation only according to the homiletic interpretation

("Rabbi Tanchuma expounded"),

but specifically according to the plain meaning

(just as the plain meaning is according to the plain meaning).

As the Rebbe Maharash asked the Tzemach Tzedek after the end came in the year 5603

[known from the statement of the Alter Rebbe regarding this]

- where is the redemption. The Tzemach Tzedek answered him:

The Likkutei Torah was indeed printed.

The Rebbe Maharash answered him:

One must have the redemption in a simple sense.

That is, there are two approaches,

and both are true:

One approach

(of the Tzemach Tzedek)

that the redemption and consolation are according to the homiletic interpretation - through the printing of the Likkutei Torah.

And a second approach

(of the Rebbe Maharash)

that one must have the redemption in a simple sense,

according to the plain meaning.

And the conclusion remains that one must have the redemption in a simple sense - as the son,

the Rebbe Maharash said - the same one who said:

The world says that if one cannot go under, one goes over,

and I say - from the outset, over!

And after the Rebbe Maharash established this path - one who says that from the outset one must go under, goes according to the order of the world!

Consequently - the question remains:

Since "All the ends have passed" - "Until when" will we still find ourselves in exile?!

And there is no answer to this question...

The only and true answer is - that one brings the redemption immediately in practice,

"Immediately they are redeemed,"

And the third Holy Temple,

which is built

(and moreover -)

and perfected above,

descends below,

"And they shall awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust,"

and Moses our teacher at their head,

together with his essence - "And you shall command,"

And all this - in an instant,

and immediately and at once literally.

The Rebbe, the Admor Shlita began to sing "Niet niet nikava."

Afterward he said:

Those who need to make a final blessing,

will certainly make a final blessing.

Completion of the first talk

[Regarding "He who works salvation in the midst of the land" on the day of the passing]

The action of the passing is until the lowest level, including "in the midst of the land" which refers to the land of Egypt,

"The nakedness of the land" - as explained in Avot deRabbi Natan and elsewhere.

Regarding the topic that "And they shall make Me a sanctuary" is one commandment,

which includes many - he brought an example from the daily study in the Rambam:

"Any priest who does not ascend to the platform, even though he has nullified one positive commandment, is considered as transgressing three positive commandments, etc."

Regarding the topic that "And they shall make Me a sanctuary" "never moves":]

From the discourse of 5704 it is implied,

that the innovation of "never moves,"

is even from the beginning,

when the Tabernacle and Temple stood,

they were in a manner of "never moves."

But simply, "does not move ever" comes to inform,

that even after the destruction of the Holy Temple - "does not move ever",

because when they were in the desert,

"no man sat there",

higher before the life of Adam - it is not a wonder that they had a Mishkan for Hashem there,

and likewise when they had the First Temple - this is further not a novelty. And even in the Second Temple - this is also not a novelty,

because although five things were lacking in it,

it is nevertheless a Holy Temple,

and on the contrary - in several matters it was higher than the First Temple,

as it is said "the glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former",

and in addition, specifically in the Second Temple a novelty came

(like "each day they shall be new in your eyes")

- through the building of Herod,

which is not a Third Temple,

but a novelty within the Second Temple itself

(but in the First Temple one does not find such a novelty);

But after the destruction of the Holy Temple,

in the time of exile,

when "children were exiled from their father's table" - there is ostensibly room to say that then they did not have the Holy Temple - upon this comes the novelty in the Midrash,

that the Temple "does not move ever",

also in the time of exile.

[Regarding the matter that Haman's advisors are called "his wise men" according to Torah - he added:]

And consequently they conducted themselves as wise men,

and they do not give opinions and certainly they do not rule on a matter in which they have no knowledge,

and they accept as heard from a second who heard from a third,

and each one added from his own etc.

[In continuation of the matter that even the sons did not know (before the time of Haman) of the Midrash that on the seventh of Adar Moses was born - he added:]

Because if the Jews at the time of Moses' death would have known of this,

the nations of the world would also have known of this,

because the Jews were then in the plains of Moab,

in proximity to settlements of the nations of the world,

and the Jews had together with the nations of the world,

they bought from merchants of the nations of the world etc.,

and especially since this was after "explained well" in seventy languages;

and if the nations of the world would have known then,

it is difficult to say that Haman and his advisors could not have found this out.

[Regarding this that several righteous ones before the time of Haman were not on the day of their birth - he added:]

And to note from the Patriarchs who were born in Nisan and died in Nisan and as is known the opinions on this - as one learns from the time and covenant of Abraham). There were certainly additional righteous ones before the time of Haman - whose day of death was not on the day of their birth,

and when one will search one will certainly find it.

[Conclusion of the talk:]

And may it be His will that this should further hasten the fulfillment of the request and

(further -)

claim and demand of the Jews - "until when",

the Almighty will certainly fulfill it,

and bring the redemption,

and the Chosen House,

on the mountain and in the city and in the chosen land,

and specifically through the chosen people

(the Jews),

that even in the First Temple this was specifically through Jews,

"not for them to build the house of our God". And although Hiram king of Tyre - donated cedar wood for the Temple

(and as it is discussed in today's Haftarah)

- the Temple is nevertheless called "the Temple of Solomon",

and regarding the second Hiram who made the copper vessels of the Mishkan,

"and Hiram made" - he was a Jew ],

and especially through "our deeds and our service" now in "and they shall make Me a sanctuary" "our deeds and our service" of Jews specifically

["our deeds" from the term coercion,

like they coerce for charity,

and "our service" from the term slave,

tanning of hides,

as explained in Torah Or on Parshat Mishpatim,

which is a preparation for Parshat Terumah],

and one thereby makes the Temple literally,

in a manner of "does not move ever",

meaning not only the matter that "the building of My house" is not "nullified"

(through the study of the laws of the Chosen House),

as it states in Tanchuma and to note that Tanchuma is from the term Menachem - this is a consolation for Jews. That based on this one will understand why Rashi brings an interpretation in his portion in the name of Rabbi Tanchuma - as will be discussed below],

but one has the Temple itself,

in a manner of "does not move ever",

as above at length.

May it be His will that from this speech in all matters - it should come out in actuality,

that we have the third Holy Temple,

and in a revealed manner,

and also the nations of the world will see this - "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see",

which includes also the nations of the world,

and in a manner of "together" - "and the kingdom shall be the Lord's",

"then I will turn to the peoples a pure language that they may all call upon the name of the Lord and serve Him with one accord",

as the Rambam writes in the Laws of the Messiah,

at the end of the Laws of Kings and their Wars,

and speedily in our days,

and in a most tangible manner.