Sichos In English, Volume 20: Adar II-Iyar, 5744

By Sichos In English

Excerpts of Sichos delivered by Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, The Lubavitcher Rebbe, at his periodic public addresses, translated into English, Adar II-Iyar, 5744

• Language: English
• Publisher: Sichos In English
• Release date: Aug 20, 2015
• ISBN: 9781310384899

Book preview

Sichos In English, Volume 20 — Adar II-Iyar, 5744

Excerpts of Sichos delivered by Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, The Lubavitcher Rebbe, at his periodic public addresses, translated into English

Published by Sichos In English

5746- 1986

Sichos In English, Volume 20 — Adar II-Iyar, 5744

Published by Sichos In English at Smashwords

Copyright 1986 Sichos In English

****

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

****

ISBN 978-1-3103-8489-9

Chapter 1: Publisher’s Foreword

With a prayer of gratitude to the Al-mighty we proudly publish the twentieth volume of Sichos In English, the third volume of 5744. This volume covers the period from Adar Sheni to Iyar 5744 and all the Farbrengens held during that time are represented here.

The free-style translations of the Sichos are structured to appeal to the English-speaking reader who has some basic familiarity with the teachings of Chassidus. The original contexts of the Sichos are generally maintained, and the form and style in which they were said is adhered to. Only slight adaptations or omissions have been permitted, when it facilitates the smooth flow of the translation. As always, great effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the translations; however, they carry no official authorization. As in all works of this nature the possibility of inadvertent error exists.

An important theme addressed by the Rebbe, during the period, was the fact that in 5744 the calendar was identical to 5700, the year which the previous Rebbe came to America. Another subject to which the Rebbe gave his attention was the Week of the Jewish Woman and the many ramifications from that project.

During 5744 the book of Tanya went through its 1000th printing and a new edition of Tanya was published which included facsimiles of the title pages representing the editions of Tanya up to that time.

The year 5744 also saw the initiation of the Year of the Rambam, in honor of the 850th year since the birth of Maimonides, as well as the initiation of daily study of Mishneh Torah, with the intention of making a Siyum celebration upon completion every year. The importance of this study was proposed and expounded by the Rebbe as recorded in the essay, Unity Through Rambam.

In addition to the translated Sichos we have also included in this volume several communal letters issued by the Rebbe, Shlita, for special occasions.

Sichos In English

11th Day of Nissan, 5746

84th Birthday of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Shlita

Chapter 2: Shabbos Parshas Tzav, Parshas Zachor, 13th Day of Adar II

1. This Shabbos comprises several aspects. It is Shabbos, which is sanctified of itself, without man’s service and present even before Mattan Torah. In addition, there are aspects which stem from Mattan Torah and man’s service: parshas Zachor; parshas Tzav; erev Purim; leap year.

Because each of these aspects are important principles in Torah, it is difficult to establish which takes precedence. Torah says of all matters in Torah that (Devorim Rabbah 6:2) You shall not sit and weigh the mitzvos of Torah — and this certainly applies to the above aspects which are general principles in Torah.

Shabbos, as we have said, is sanctified of itself, and is certainly an important principle. Parshas Zachor is the only parshah about which all authorities agree that it is a Scriptural obligation to hear it read. Parshas Tzav, Rashi writes (Vayikra 6:2), applies for the present and for [future] generations. Purim is eternal, as the Rambam rules (Hilchos Megillah 2:18): The days of Purim shall not be abolished, as written: ‘These days of Purim shall not pass from the Jews and their remembrance shall not cease from their seed. Today, erev Purim, especially after midday when the influence of Purim is already present, shares the same status. A leap year reconciles the solar and lunar years, making it a whole year, which in spiritual terms corresponds to the perfection of two types of service: new (moon) and permanent (sun).

Although each of the above are important principles in Torah, there must nevertheless be some order of precedence, for it is impossible to talk of everything at once. Moreover, precedence is necessary not just because a person cannot discuss two things at once and therefore must discuss one before the other, but because Torah establishes precedence. We find, for example, that of two things, one of which occurs more frequently than the other, the more frequent occurrence takes precedence. Although both matters may be of equal importance, Torah assigns precedence to that which occurs more frequently. Thus in our case, although all of these aspects are very important, there must be an order of precedence according to Torah.

It should be noted, though, that although by saying one thing has precedence it implies that the other is inferior, this is not really the case — for it is impossible to say that something in Torah is inferior. Instead, the fact that something follows another is also a distinction. The worth of something can be ascertained by the preparation needed for it: the loftier the preparation, the greater the thing that follows. Thus, in the case of two things, one of which occurs more frequently than the other, although the more frequently occurring matter takes precedence, the fact that the other matter follows it — the former serves as a lofty preparation for the latter — indicates that the latter matter is very great.

An analogy to this is a dwarf standing atop a giant. The dwarf has the advantage that he can see further than the giant; but the superiority of the giant is that he is the basis, and it is through him that the dwarf can see so far. So too in our case: When one thing precedes another, the second thing, which follows the preparation of the first, stands atop the first thing — like a dwarf atop a giant. To be more exact, it is like a giant standing atop another giant, for, as noted above, all the aspects of this Shabbos are important principles. Thus each aspect has an advantage. The advantage of the aspect which follows another is that, since it stands atop the former, it reaches a loftier height. The advantage of the first is that it is the foundation, since the advantage of the second is possible only through the first.

It follows, then, that the fact that one aspect of this Shabbos takes precedence over another does not mean that the second aspect is inferior.

The aspect which takes precedence on this Shabbos is parshas Zachor, and the reason for its preeminence will become clear after we have discussed its concept. Last year, when Shabbos parshas Zachor was erev Purim, as this year, we talked of the lessons derived from parshas Zachor; and since it has been printed, there is no need to repeat what we said then. Instead we shall give a concise summary of the points raised last year, and add new details not discussed then. These new details will revolve around elements of this year which were not present last year: That it is Shabbos parshas Tzav, whereas last year parshas Zachor was on Shabbos parshas Tetzaveh; and that this year is a leap year.

First we turn to the lesson derived from parshas Zachor in general. Zachor means Remember, and the fact that this parshah is called Zachor, without any mention of what one must remember, indicates that its theme is the idea of remembrance, regardless of what is to be remembered.

Of course, the obvious reason why this parshah is called just Zachor is because this word alone suffices as a sign of which parshah we are talking about, and what is to be remembered — Remember what Amalek did to you. Or, in a deeper sense, it is called just Zachor because one shouldn’t mention the name Amalek unnecessarily. However, since in the final analysis the custom is to call this parshah just Zachor, it follows that the principal emphasis is on the theme of remembrance alone. What is that theme?

When a person is told to Remember, the first thing that springs to mind to remember is that which is nearest to him — himself, his existence, as the Talmud (Sanhedrin 9b) says: A person is near to himself.

A person possesses many things: his soul-powers, his children, his wealth, etc. But the fact that he exists is present before all these things. However, one need not remember his existence, for a person constantly feels that he exists; and remembrance applies only to something which is not constantly present. We must therefore conclude that Remember refers to the next closest thing to his existence: the purpose and goal of his creation.

Since a person knows that he exists, he realizes that some being must have created him — for nothing can make itself. Jews, especially, who are believers, the sons of believers, know that G-d created them. And since this is so, there must be a purpose to his creation. That purpose is I was created to serve My Maker.

Zachor, then, is the concept of remembering that a person is created by G-d, the true existence, to serve Him. And this is why parshas Zachor takes precedence over all the other aspects of this Shabbos: For the idea of I was created to serve my Maker is the root and foundation of service in general; only after this foundation is in place do the other aspects of this Shabbos, which are particular components in service, follow.

Thus far the theme of Zachor as elaborated on last year. There is another aspect to this theme which we did then not talk about. Although Zachor refers to remembering that which is closest to a person — that he is created by G-d to serve Him — nevertheless, in the plain sense of the verse, Zachor refers to the obligation to remember what Amalek did to the Jews. Since the plain interpretation of the verse is the basis for the other types of interpretation (allegorical, homiletical, and mystical) — for a verse never departs from its plain interpretation — we must conclude that there is a connection between the plain sense of the word Zachor — remembering Amalek, and its broader sense — remembering that a person is created by G-d to serve Him.

But these two things seem to be complete opposites. Amalek represents the attitude of He knows his Creator and willfully rebels against Him. How can there be a connection between remembering Amalek and remembering that a person’s existence derives from G-d and that he must serve Him?

Indeed, the very fact that a Jew must Remember what Amalek did to you indicates that he has some type of connection to Amalek. If a Jew were totally removed from Amalek, there would be no need for warning. It is only because there is a connection that Torah must command Remember what Amalek did to you. Now, if a Jew were to properly remember that he is created by G-d solely to serve Him, how could there be a remembrance of Amalek who represents the antithesis of sanctity (willful rebellion against G-d)?

Further, the obligation to remember Amalek is both a positive and negative commandment (Remember and Do not forget). Our Sages say (Zohar, I, 170b) that the 248 limbs of a person correspond to the 248 positive commandments, and his 365 sinews correspond to the 365 negative commandments. Thus the remembrance of Amalek is part of a person’s very being!

The paradox will be resolved through understanding another concept. Our Sages say (Mechilta, Yisro 20:8) that the first two of the ten commandments — I am the L-rd your G-d and You shall not have other gods before Me — were said in one utterance. These two commandments seem to be opposites: I am the L-rd your G-d refers to knowledge of the true existence, excluding the possibility of any other; You shall have no other gods implies there are other gods, but that You shall have no other gods. How, then, could these two opposites be said in the one utterance?

However, the command You shall have no other gods not only is no contradiction to I am the L-rd your G-d, but in fact complements it.

Man’s service, to be whole, must be performed by his own efforts, making him a partner with G-d in creation. Just as a person, to be a partner, must actually do something for the partnership, so too in the partnership between G-d and man: man must actually do things in the partnership. To make this possible, G-d had to create evil, thus allowing free choice to exist. When man chooses to do good, to fight against evil and transform that evil into good, he infuses a new element into creation, and thereby becomes a partner with G-d.

I am the L-rd your G-d represents a Jew’s service in holiness, and You shall not have other gods represents the battle against evil. Since the battle against evil is an integral part of a Jew’s service, without which a Jew could not become a partner with G-d in creation, these two commandments were said in the one utterance.

In similar fashion, the two elements present in parshas Zachor — remembering that a person is created by G-d to serve Him, and remembering Amalek — are not contradictory: they complement each other. Service in general is to remember to serve G-d. For this service to be whole, stemming from man’s efforts, making him a partner with G-d in creation, evil must be present. The lowest depth in evil is Amalek, who knows his Creator and willfully rebels against Him. Amalek serves as the spur to man, that man should prevail over Amalek and thus serve G-d wholly.

Remembering Amalek is thus part of service, rendering that service man’s and making him a partner in creation. On parshas Zachor, the first remembrance is therefore that a person is created by G-d to serve Him — service in general. Then comes the particular details of that service: Remember what Amalek did to you, through which a person’s service becomes whole.

After the service of remembering (parshas Zachor), which is service in general, other particular aspects of service — the other aspects of this Shabbos (Shabbos, parshas Tzav, erev Purim, leap year) — follow.

Since deed is paramount — as emphasized in parshas Zachor, that in addition to remembering what Amalek did there is also the command to Blot out the memory of Amalek — all of the above concepts associated with parshas Zachor must be implemented by all Jews in actual deed. Also, one must endeavor that other Jews do likewise, and in such a way that they in turn will inspire others to do so, ad infinitum.

May it be G-d’s will that very soon we merit to fulfill the mitzvah of obliterating Amalek literally. In the words of our Sages: Israel was commanded about three mitzvos upon their entrance into the land: to appoint a king for themselves, to cut off the seed of Amalek and to build for themselves the Bais Hamikdosh. That is, all Jews shall go to our holy land, Moshiach will fully complete the mitzvah of obliterating Amalek, and then immediately afterwards will be the revelation of the third Bais Hamikdosh.

*

2. The above is the lesson derived from parshas Zachor every year. In addition, there are directives to be learned from the parshah read on Shabbos Zachor this year — parshas Tzav. Last year, which unlike this year was not a leap year, the parshah read on Shabbos Zachor was parshas Tetzaveh.

Tzav and Tetzaveh both mean Command. The difference between the two is that Tzav emphasizes the idea of urgency, as Rashi comments (Vayikra 6:2): ‘Tzav’ denotes only ‘urgency’ — for the present and for [future] generations. That is, Tzav stresses the concepts of urgency and eternality (for generations).

This difference between the two parshas — that Tzav stresses the element of eternality — is reflected in their respective contents. Parshas Tzav talks of the daily congregational offering offered twice each day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. The morning sacrifice began the offerings of the day, and the afternoon sacrifice was the day’s last offering. The conclusion of this passage is (Vayikra 6:6): A constant fire shall be kept burning on the altar; it shall not be extinguished. Thus parshas Tzav talks of a constant, eternal matter, present every day, all day.

Parshas Tetzaveh, in contrast, talks of the kindling of the menorah. Although the term constant is used to describe this service — to keep the lamp constantly burning (Shemos 27:20) — this means only night after night.

The lesson, then, from Shabbos Zachor coinciding with parshas Tzav this year, is that all the above discussed concepts relating to Remember must be done in a manner of urgency — for the present and for [future] generations. Thus, although the above lesson from Remember was spoken of last year, it needs to be repeated time and time again, in an eternal manner. And, of course, when something is repeated at another farbrengen, the words spoken have extra force, especially since a farbrengen is such a lofty occasion.

Another matter which differentiates Shabbos Zachor of this year from last year is that this year is a leap year. We have spoken at previous occasions of the theme of a leap year, which reconciles the solar and lunar years: In man’s spiritual service, the solar year corresponds to durable, unchangeable service (like the sun’s light), while the lunar year corresponds to new service (like the moon’s light which is constantly changing).

Some aspects of service are the same every day, as for example, the recital of Shema and the text of the prayers. Other aspects of service change and are new: Torah study in a manner of constantly seeking new insights; and in prayer itself, although the text remains the same every day, a person’s needs for which he prays changes. The theme of a leap year in spiritual service is to reconcile these two types of service: the element of newness should be introduced into constant, unchanging service; and new service should be durable.

These two aspects of constancy and newness are emphasized on Purim, the theme of which is they kept what they had already accepted. This comprises two points: 1) a new acceptance; 2) acceptance of Mattan Torah — something which had been always present.

Likewise, there are aspects to the way Purim is celebrated each year: 1) With the greatest joy, — i.e., every Purim sees a new element of joy, transcending all limits; 2) this newness itself is constant and eternal, as written: These days of Purim shall not pass from the Jews and their remembrance shall not cease from their seed. Thus Purim, like a leap year, emphasizes the synthesis of the two aspects of constancy and newness.

The lesson from a leap year is that Purim, which is an eternal matter, must be celebrated each year in a new manner. And when it is celebrated in such a manner, its concepts are repeated each year, as written: These days shall be remembered and kept — through the proper remembrance, the days of Purim are reenacted anew.

Simultaneously, this must be done is a constant manner, meaning that this lesson applies not just to this year, but to all years, although they are not leap years.

Because deed is paramount, we must increase mightily — in a new manner — in all the matters of Purim, especially the Purim campaign, enabling all our brethren to keep the mitzvos of Purim.

[The Rebbe Shlita here spoke a sichah concerning the name of the Megillah — Megillas Esther — and explained how this name describes the greatness of the Jewish woman. The sichah was delivered in connection to the Week of the Jewish Woman, which began at Purim. The sichah has been published as a separate essay, titled Esther — the Jewish Woman.]

*

3. Parshas Tzav talks of many of the laws surrounding the offering of sacrifices. Ch. 7, verse 15, states: The flesh of his thanksgiving peace offering must be eaten on the day it is offered; he shall not leave over any of it until morning. Rashi, quoting the words, He shall not leave over any of it until morning, comments: But he may eat [it] all night. If so, why did they say [that he may eat it only] ‘until midnight’? In order to keep a man far from transgression.

Rashi is saying that although Scripture allows a person to eat his thanksgiving peace offering all night until the morning, a decree was passed forbidding a person to eat it after midnight, to make sure that a person should not inadvertently keep eating until after morning.

There are several puzzling points in this comment of Rashi’s. 1) Rashi only comments to resolve a difficulty in the plain meaning of the verse. The verse The flesh ... of the offering must be eaten on the day it is offered; he shall not leave over any of it until morning, seems quite clear of itself. What difficulty does Rashi perceive that he wishes to resolve with his comment that a person is really permitted to eat the offering the whole night, but that it was restricted to midnight to prevent transgression?

2) Rashi’s interpretation is directed to a five-year old who has learned only Chumash, and not Mishnah or Gemara. Rashi says, If so, why did they say ‘until midnight: Who is the they, and where is such a thing said? The verse explicitly says, He shall not leave over any of it until the morning, clearly implying that he may eat [it] all night, not just until midnight!

Some editions of Rashi cite the first mishnah in Berachos as the source for his comment: All [offerings] that are to be eaten within one day may be lawfully eaten until dawn. If so, why did the Sages say ‘until midnight’? In order to keep a man far from transgression. Other editions of Rashi cite his source as the Toras Kohanim: He shall not leave over any of it until morning — But he may eat it all night. If so, why did the sages say ‘until midnight’? To keep [a man] far from transgression.

As we have noted on previous occasions, citations such as these were not written by Rashi, but added by copyists or publishers of his work.

Although these citations may indeed be Rashi’s source, the five-year old to whom Rashi addresses his commentary has not yet learned the mishnah in Berachos or the Toras Kohanim. How, then, should he know that the sages ordained that one should not eat past midnight? And thus our original question remains: What does Rashi mean by saying Why did they say ‘until midnight? — who said