Ma’amar Basi L’Gani 5735

The Ma’amar

Translated and Annotated by

Heschel Greenberg

Introduction

The Alter Rebbe once said that one must live with the times. Contrary to the way it sounds, the Alter Rebbe was not advocating following modern trends and changing with the times by adjusting our Judaism to the changing values and mores of society. In fact, the opposite is true. The Alter Rebbe was referring to the times measured by the Torah. One must seek guidance for our lives from the weekly Torah portion. So if this week we are reading about the Egyptian bondage and Exodus, we must learn lessons concerning our own spiritual bondage and the proper path to Redemption, etc.

Chassidim have added another layer to the notion of “living with the times.” There is an expression that the Rebbe mentioned repeatedly: “the Chassidic Parsha.” He was referring to the study of the discourses of the Alter Rebbe on the weekly Torah portions in his seminal works Torah Or and Likkutei Torah”

In other words, in addition to the lessons gleaned from the actual narratives and laws of the Torah, we must also glean deeper insights from the wellsprings of Chassidus on those Biblical texts, as they correspond to that particular week.

But the Jewish cycle of time is measured yet another way. In addition to the weekly Torah readings, our year is seasoned with Holidays. We must obviously live with the messages of those Holidays, particularly as they are viewed through the lens of Chassidus.

One may add that there are certain seasonal discourses that Chassidim “lived with” with extraordinary devotion. One such discourse—or series of discourses—is Basi L’Gani.

The Previous Rebbe issued a discourse entitled Basi L’Gani to be studied on the tenth day of Shevat in the year 5710-1950, which was the yahrtzeit of his grandmother, the Rebbetzin Rivkah. That day, the Previous Rebbe left us physically as well, and, as a result, this discourse became the final Divine message that was channeled through the Rebbe, the leader of that generation, to his followers, and indeed to the entire Jewish nation for posterity.

The Rebbe asked of us to study this discourse in the days that lead to Yud Shevat. and review it, publically, throughout the day of Yud Shevat.

From the year 5711—the first Hilula of the Previous Rebbe—onward the Rebbe delivered a Ma’amar/Chassidic Discourse with the same title of Basi L’Gani. Indeed, the recitation of that discourse in the year 5711 was the “sign” that the Rebbe had finally accepted the role of Rebbe after many months of resisting that position of leadership.

Each year, the discourse the Rebbe delivered on Yud Shevat focused and elaborated on one chapter of the Previous Rebbe’s Discourse. The original Ma’amar (which is actually a series of four discourses) comprises twenty chapters and for twenty years the Rebbe delivered a Ma’amar on the chapter that corresponded to that year. In the year 5730, the Rebbe concluded a series of annual Basi L’Gani discourses, elaborating on the final twentieth chapter. There was some suspense as to what the Rebbe would do the next year.

In the year 5731, the Rebbe started a new series of discourses beginning again with a Ma’amar on the first chapter of the original Ma’amar. It was a completely new discourse, not a repetition of the one he said in 5711. This custom continued until—and through—the year 5748, when the Rebbe delivered a discourse on the 18th chapter. For reasons that were not divulged, the Rebbe did not continue this custom for the years beyond 5748. However, he did edit and submit for publication some of the earlier discourses, including the one of 5732. This was one of the last discourses the Rebbe edited for publication for Yud Shevat 5752.

In short, Chassidim were asked to live with—and they did live—with Basi L’Gani in general and the corresponding chapter in particular. This year 5775 (the fourth cycle) we live with the discourses that the Rebbe said in the years 5715 and 5735.

Most of the references cited in the footnotes were supplied by the publishers of these discourses (“Va’ad L’Hafotzas Sichos”) and, more recently, “Lahak” (which published a somewhat edited version of the Ma’amar) and were reproduced here in the translation. Additional explanatory footnotes were added by the translator to help clarify some of the concepts in the Ma’amar. These comments are my humble attempt at making some of the arcane concepts somewhat more accessible to the average reader. I cannot vouch for their accuracy.

I am publishing this translation on the occasion of my birthday ישראל העשיל בן בילא מלכה (on Yud-Gimmel Shevat), the birthday of my daughter Chaya Sarah ‘חי’ שרה בת לאה תחי (on Yud Aleph Shevat) and my son Levi Yitzchak לוי ‘יצחק בן לאה שיחי (on Chof-Beis Shevat), the birthday of my son Nochum ‘נחום בן לאה שיחי (on Beis Shevat), my daughter-in-law Bracha Leah ברכה לאה ‘תחי בת אסתר מרים מלכה ע”ה (on Chof Vov Shevat) and my granddaughter Miriam ‘מרים בת רבקה שיינא תחי, (on Hei Shevat,) especially in honor of her Bas Mitzvah.

It is my fervent prayer that the study of this Ma’amar will bring blessing to all of the above for a year of success, materially and spiritually, long life, good health, Chassideshe Nachas from children etc., and, most importantly, it should hasten the time when we will be reunited with the Ba’al Hilulo and our Rebbe, with the true and complete Redemption by our righteous Moshiach מלכנו משיחנו, תיכף ומי”ד ממ”ש. אכי!”ר Heschel Greenberg 5 Shevat, 5775 Buffalo, New York

The Ma’amar

Basi L’Gani - “I have come into My garden, My sister, My bride”¹ The Ba’al Hahilula² in his series of discourses³ associated with his Hilula cites the words of Midrash Rabbah on this verse: This discourse is based, primarily, on the fifth chapter of the Discourse Basi L’Gani 5710. This chapter corresponds to this year – See Introduction.

“The words ‘My garden’ means ‘My chamber;’ to the place where My dwelling was originally, for the essence of the Shechinah (Divine presence)⁴ was originally revealed below.

Prior to the sin the essence of the Shechinah was situated down below, particularly in Gan Eden. Through the sin of the Tree of Knowledge and sins committed by subsequent six generations the Shechinah departed and ascended upward until it reached the seventh heaven.

This Midrashic comment can be found in several locations. The Previous Rebbe, however, emphasizes that he is referring to the Midrashic comment in the Midrash on this very verse. Chassidim speculated that this was a hint as to who should succeed him as the leader of the seventh generation. The name attached to this Midrashic teaching, in this specific location, is “R. Menachem, his son-in-law”! One may add another hint. The word bimkomo-in his place is the same gematria as the Rebbe’s second name Mendel!

Later, seven righteous people arrived and brought the Shechinah down from the seventh heaven to the sixth and so on until Moses, who was the seventh generation and “all sevens are beloved” and brought the Shechinah down to this world.

Moses’ success at bringing the Shechinah down was primarily evident in the Mishkan, as it says, “Make for Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in them.”⁵ In general terms, the objective is to make a dwelling place for G-d in our world, which is the lowest of realms.⁶ More specifically, we are told to make a dwelling for Vayikra Rabbah 29:11.

G-d within the dwelling, referring to the Mishkan—“And I will dwell in them.”

Now, the boards of the Mishkan, which surrounded the Mishkan on all sides, were made of Shittim (Acacia) wood. This suggests that “Shittim wood” convey an essential message pertaining to the Mishkan.⁷ More specifically, the fact that the Torah stresses that the wood was Shittim wood⁸ demonstrates that Shittim too is a central theme of the Mishkan.

In the original Discourse⁹ he explains that the word Shittim is cognate to the word shtus-folly, which represents the spirit of folly that enters a Terumah 26:15.

person when he commits a sin, concerning which our Sages state, “no one commits a sin unless a spirit of folly enters him.” Because foolishness is the root of sin, one can correct and transform it by employing its positive counterpart, “Holy folly,” measure for measure.¹⁰ This method enables one to nullify and gain victory over the spirit of folly.

Thus, because the construction of the Mishkan and the presence of the Divine in it came to correct the sins of the seven generations etc., which derive from the spirit of foolishness, it thus follows that the way to correct that was through the method of “measure for measure” – “holy folly.”

Sotah 3a. The Talmud employs that expression with respect to punishment. The Rebbe applies it here to the rectification of the sin. If the sin was caused by foolishness, the correction must also come through foolisheness.

This was the function of the Shittim wood in the Mishkan; to correct and transform the unholy foolishness.

The above represents the central theme of the first four chapters of the first Discourse in the series.

In the fifth chapter (which corresponds to this year) the Previous Rebbe continues to define the concept of holy folly. Within the realm of holiness, it represents “deviating above and beyond knowledge.¹¹ Folly is defined by the deviation above and beyond knowledge and wisdom.¹² It transcends limits and boundaries.¹³ The year 5735, the year this Discourse was delivered.

To explain this concept as it relates to human behavior he cites the verse in Tehillim (Psalm 73):¹⁴ “I was a fool, without knowledge, I was an animal towards You. [Yet,] I was always with you…” The meaning of this verse is explained there: Because I was a fool and an animal, which means that I possessed holy folly which transcends reason and knowledge, I am therefore above logic is holy folly. This means that even matters of holiness that are below reason and logic are caused by and rooted in the soul’s essence where it transcends reason and logic; where it is in a state of visualization.” The Rebbe seems to be suggesting that even when we serve G-d with simple “kabbolas ol-acceptance of the yoke” it contains within it the power of the soul’s essence that transcends logic. See Rabbi Shmuel Avtzon’s excellent treatment of this matter in the recently published journal Kimayim Layum Mechasim.

always with you. In order to reach G-d’s very essence one must surrender one’s will in a manner that transcends reason and knowledge. This concept is therefore characterized as folly.

The ultimate goal for a person is to be “with You,” close to G-d’s Or Ein Sof-Infinite Light.¹⁵ As explained earlier,¹⁶ “the secret of sacrifices is Tanya, Chapter 18 (24a). The simple meaning of the verse is: despite my being a fool and an animal I am still with You. Here the verse is reinterpreted in the opposite manner: the reason why I am with You is because I am a fool.

that it rises to and draws us near to the secret of the Infinite One (Ein Sof),”¹⁷ The question arises, if the Ein Sof is beyond all parameters and boundaries, how is it possible “to be with You?”¹⁸ To answer this question the verse in Psalms prefaces the words ““I was a fool, without knowledge…” One can constantly be with You by being a “fool without knowledge,” that which precludes reason and knowledge, that which transcends reason and knowledge—“holy folly.”¹⁹ The word korban does not mean sacrifice but “getting close” or “drawing near.”

Now the idea of “I was a fool, without knowledge…” which allows us to realize closeness to G-d expressed in the words, “I was always with You,” involves all aspects of our behavior (as mentioned above).

However, [while it applies to all areas of service to G-d], it stands to reason that this approach must primarily be reflected in the area of service which brings all other aspects of our service to a exercise. Likewise, when performing a Mitzvah, the ideal is to have an understanding of the reasons and deeper meanings of the Mitzvah. The point made here, and later in this Ma’amar as well as in many other Chassidic sources, is that we cannot be content with the intellectual approach to Judaism; we must transcend even the most profound and desirable levels of knowledge. Furthermore, we must see to it that our transcendent folly inspires, affects and elevates the intellectual dimension. Thus, the idea of “folly” in the service of G-d is not constrictive and limiting. On the contrary it broadly expands our spiritual horizons. However, see below where the Rebbe takes the point about holy folly to another level. The objective is that the holy folly should permeate even one’s intellectual involvement with Torah.

state of perfection. This is the service of prayer, which is represented by the “ladder situated on the ground and reaching into the heavens.” Prayer elevates all of our thoughts, spoken words and actions to the heavens.²⁰ The service of prayer is thus about achieving “I was always with You,” which is essentially the directive of the Code of Jewish Law²¹ “I place G-d before me always.”²² This ladder that appeared in Jacob’s dream (Vayeitzei 28:12) is interpreted by the Zohar (I:266b. III:306b. Tikkunei Zohar 45 (83a)) as a metaphor for prayer that links the earth with heaven.

This premise is supported by the juxtaposition of the foregoing verse²³ with a later verse: “Whom else do I have in heaven? And beside You I want no one on earth.”²⁴ The Tzemach Tzedek recounted²⁵ that when the Alter Rebbe was in a state of meditative ecstasy he would be heard saying this verse and the Alter Rebbe would add,²⁶ “I want nothing at all! I don’t want Your Gan Eden, I don’t want Your World to Come… I want nothing other than You alone!”

The fact that the Tzemach Tzedek describes this event occurring during the Alter Rebbe’s state of meditative ecstasy (expressing passionate love)

specifically, it is also most essential to prayer. Thus, prayer that lacks transcending our limited reason and logic is inherently an incomplete prayer and in the context of his exposition of the various levels of love for G-d, it follows that the concept contained in the words “beside You I want no one” is the ultimate state of love, which is an integral component of prayer (as expressed in the words “there is no service like the service of love”²⁷).

The Discourse continues:

“Our Sages stated (Kesubos):²⁸ It was said of R. Yehudah the son of R. Ila’i that at Prayer is more than just reciting words and making requests of G-d. It is an authentic and exalted meditative experience and an outpouring of love for G-d. The highest level of prayer and love is the one expressed by the Alter Rebbe in the anecdote cited here. And is based on the words of the Psalm.

weddings he would twirl a sprig of myrtle as he danced before the bride…. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak would dance with three (“He would juggle with three twigs of myrtle.”— Rashi).²⁹ When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak passed away, “a pillar of fire appeared, separating him from all those who were near him.”

R. Zeira thereupon stated: “The venerable sage has been well served by his folly In this translation “R.” is short for Rebi, the honorific title given to the rabbis of the Tana’itic period and to the rabbis who lived in Israel in the early Amoraic period. Other rabbis are called Rav. This depended on whether they received the original Semicha (ordination) in an unbroken chain back to Moses.

The reason the Discourse cites this Talmudic passage is to reinforce the idea that folly can be used to describe the proper approach to serving G-d, [which parallels the idea of folly the Talmud uses to describe commission of a sin. And it is for this reason that the Mishkan was made of Shittim wood because it is cognate to shtus-folly].³⁰ Towards this end he cites this Talmudic narrative (which will enable us to The foregoing verse “I was a fool, without knowledge, I was an animal towards You,” which exemplifies the idea of holy folly, has no explicit mention of the word shtus-folly. The term for “fool” in this verse is ba’ar not shoteh.

understand the specifics of holy folly, as will be explained later) concerning his dancing with a myrtle sprig and with juggling with three myrtle sprigs, contrary to the standard rational approach of Torah scholars. This trans-rational approach ultimately led to “a pillar of fire that separated between him and all those who were near him” upon his passing.

We must understand. If this was the intent of the Discourse, it would have sufficed to cite the idea that his folly assisted the Sage. Why does the Discourse cite all of the details of that narrative that do not appear to have any bearing on the subject of folly? Why does he cite the introductory incident with R. Yehudah the son of R. Ila’i who would dance with a sprig of myrtle and that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak would dance with three sprigs of myrtle? In a note penned by the Rebbe, the Rebbe writes: “One cannot answer that the reason he cites that R. Yehudah bar Ila’i’s dancing with one sprig is to serve as a source for Rashi’s commentary that the words “he danced with three” refers to three sprigs of myrtle – this Moreover, he cites all the three versions of R. Zeira’s reaction:

”R. Zeira said: “The venerable sage has been well served by his sprig” (Shot-ie-ah), (‘the sprig of myrtle with which he used to dance’ Rashi).

Another version: “The venerable sage has been well served by his folly” (Shtusay), (‘for he clowned like a fool’ — Rashi).

A third version: “The venerable sage has been well served by his policy” (Shitosay), (‘by his customary course of conduct’ (Rashi).³¹ is untenable because that would not be consistent with the objective of the Discourse to clarify Rashi’s source. Also, what is the relevance in knowing with what he danced?

It would seem that the only relevant version is the one about his shtus-folly. Why are all the other versions necessary?

The question is magnified considering the fact that this Talmudic passage is cited in the discourse of the Mitteler Rebbe (in his Siddur)³² and in a discourse of the Rebbe Rashab on the verse Basi L’Gani 5758³³ (where some of the points of the Hilula series are discussed in general terms) as well as in his Kuntres U’Ma’ayon.³⁴ However, only details directly related to the exposition are referred to in these sources. In our Discourse, by contrast, all the foregoing details that do not seem to add clarification to the subject at hand, are cited.

act of dancing with a branch? This version only weakens the powerful effects of the other versions, particularly, the one that ascribes this behavior to a policy. Why then does the Discourse cite extraneous information that detracts form the strength of the message?

One may suggest the following explanation for this:

This Discourse is dedicated to explaining all the specifics of “the spirit of folly” that enters the sinner [and causes him to sin]. It also seeks to differentiate between the letters kuf and reish of the word sheker-falsehood³⁵ and the letters As explained in the introduction, the Previous Rebbe’s Ma’amar is actually a series of four discourses. The reference in the text here is to chapter 6 which appears in the second discourse of the series.

daled and hei etc.³⁶ He therefore wants to explain the specifics of “holy folly” which neutralize their parallel forces of unholy folly, as will be explained below.

The core point that clarifies the above is as follows:

The Shittim wood, which was used for the construction of the Mishkan, represents an encompassing force. They formed the walls that surrounded and encompassed all aspects of the Mishkan. Within the confines of the walls all of the various services were conducted, the most general of which was the sacrificial service, including the Tamid-daily and Musaf-additional offerings. This service had to conform with aspects of prayer, attention must be paid the requests for our specific and detailed needs. It is not enough to just stand before G-d.

reason and logic and had to adhere to the most minute particular requirements.

All of these specific details, though, were surrounded and encompassed by the Shittim wood, which symbolizes folly, which, in the realm of holiness represents holy folly that goes beyond reason and logic. This encompassing force influenced all of the particulars of the service which transpired within the Mishkan.

This model is an analogy for prayer (which, as stated above, chapter 2, expresses the idea of holy folly referred to by the words “I was a fool without knowledge… which leads to, “I am always with You.”) There is its general and central idea which encompasses and influences all of the specifics inherent in prayer. In a note penned by the Rebbe, the Rebbe added: “See Kuntres HoAvodah (Chapter 5): even the encompassing force of Chaya has the power to affect… certainly the encompassing power of Yechidah.”

Chaya and Yechidah are two encompassing faculties of our soul; however Yechidah is associated with its essence. Perhaps, the Rebbe suggesting that the level of To explain:

It was explained above that the essential concept of prayer is captured by the words heard by the Alter Rebbe when he was in his intense meditative state of ecstasy, He echoed the words of David “the sweet singer of Israel”³⁷ whose words were said in the name of all of Israel: “What is for me in the heavens and that which is with You I do not desire on earth.” Prior to this he declares: “And I am always with You.” It was also explained that the means to attain this state is stated in the earlier verse, “I am a fool and do not know…”

Notwithstanding the above, prayer, by definition, is about requesting one’s needs, which involve even the most minute details.

attachment to G-d, when the Alter Rebbe exclaimed “I only want You…” is of the higher encompassing force of Yechidah and will therefore certainly affect the rest of the day.

There is a well-known dispute amongst the legal authorities as to whether prayer is a Biblical obligation.³⁸ This is discussed at length by the commentaries to the beginning of Rambam’s Laws of Prayer, where he states: “It is a positive commandment to pray daily.”³⁹ However, this is the subject of a dispute between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. In the Babylonian Talmud⁴⁰ it is states that R. Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues, whose sole preoccupation was Torah study, were required to interrupt their studies with the recitation of the Shema, They did not have to interrupt their studies for prayer. The reason given is that the recitation of the Or merely a rabbinical enactment.

Shema is a Biblical obligation whereas prayer is only a rabbinic obligation.

The Jerusalem Talmud, however, cites two opinions about this matter. R. Acha maintains that recitation of the Shema is Biblical, but prayer is not Biblical. R. Ba offers an alternative distinction: Recitation of the Shema has a fixed time, whereas prayer has no fixed time. From this one can prove that according to this latter view prayer is indeed Biblical. One may suggest that this opinion is the source for Rambam’s ruling that prayer is a Biblical obligation. Although, there is a general rule that when the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds disagree we follow the Babylonian,⁴¹ there is evidence from several citations of the Babylonian Talmud that Berachos 1:2. Shabbos 1:2.

prayer is Biblical, only the text of and times for prayer are rabbinic.⁴² Indeed, Raya Mehemna (which is the Book of Commandments within the Zohar) in Parshas Pinchas⁴³ states: “The eleventh commandment is called the morning, afternoon and evening prayer.” This suggests that, according to the Zohar, not only is prayer itself Biblical in origin but even the times for prayer are Biblical.

This explains why, in the Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Berachos⁴⁴ it relates that Achitophel would pray three times a day.⁴⁵ See Piskei DInim of Tzemach Tzedek, Chidushim on Rambam, p. 340c ff.

At any rate, even the view that the times for prayer and the text of prayer is not Biblical, prayer itself is Biblically mandated. And the fundamental aspect of prayer, to cite Rambam, is for a person to ask for his needs in a manner of request and supplication.

Tzemach Tzedek (in the beginning his Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefilah, after citing the dispute of the authorities as to whether prayer is Biblical or rabbinical, and that most of those who enumerate the commandments concluded that the Biblical obligation of prayer is to ask for one’s needs) adds that this represents the very root of faith. When one asks for his needs of G-d it leads a person to the awareness and understanding that G-d is the exclusive Master of His world and watches over every single one of close to 500 years after Achitophel’s time. This proves that the idea of praying three times daily predated the rabbinic enactment of prayer and is presumably rooted in the Torah, in consonance with the opinion of the Zohar.

His creatures and that He is the only One who can help.

King Solomon’s prayer concerning the Holy Temple also supports this premise. He prayed: “Any prayer or supplication, which will be made by any man (who has had undesirable experiences, as enumerated there in the preceding verses)…, and he will spread forth his hands toward this house. You shall hear… and do according to all that the stranger call You for.” This is certainly true with regard to a Jewish person (only that the stranger gets whatever he requests, to sanctify G-d’s name, otherwise he will complain etc.⁴⁶ For a Jew it merely states: “And give to every man according to his ways”

From the above it is clear that the Holy Temple was the place in which one would make requests for his needs; indeed, one’s very specific needs. At the same time, paradoxically, prayer involves the attainment of “That which is with You I do I Melachim 8:38-43.

not desire.” When a person is in this state he does not have any material needs and not even spiritual needs, even on the highest plane. All he wants is nothing more than You Yourself.

To clarify this paradox:

Prayer in general is like the ladder which is situated on the ground and reaches up to the heavens. This means that prayer elevates a person to the heavens, even unto the level of “and that which is with You I don’t desire….” However, this state of closeness does not negate his personal requests. On the contrary, quantitatively speaking, most of our prayers are devoted to personal requests.

Moreover, the effects of one’s meditative ecstasy (implied in the choice of the word concerning the Alter Rebbe that what they heard him say was at the time of his meditative ecstasy) extend beyond the time of prayer and is felt in every aspect of his service and behavior throughout the day.

Although our Sages said, “If only a person prayed all day,” the key words are “if only…”, suggesting that one must devote each and every day to its intended service,⁴⁷ albeit permeated with the influence that is provided for by the sum-total of one’s prayer—the sentiment of “what is with You I do not desire.”

The above reflects the teaching of the Ba’al Shem Tov (in Tzava’as Harivash⁴⁸ and other sources) concerning G-d’s great kindness that keeps one alive after prayer. The laws of nature dictate that one should die… for having invested so much in Berachos 21a, Yerushalmi Berachos I:2. This seems to imply that the ideal is to be in a meditative state all day, contradicting the premise that the majority of the day must contain other activities that are influenced by prayer. The Rebbe’s answer is that it is only a theoretical ideal and that in practice it is realized when all of the day’s activities are inspired by the exalted state of one’s prayer in the morning.

his prayer due to his intense concentration. Although he was referring to the established liturgy containing 18 specific blessings, nevertheless each of these individual requests must be permeated with a passion to the point of the soul’s expiration. Only G-d’s great kindness prevented him from actually expiring.

A similar thought has been advanced by the Maggid (of Mezritch) in his exposition⁴⁹ of the Talmudic statement⁵⁰ that “one who makes his Tefillin round has incurred danger and does not have a Mitzvah.”

In this exposition, the words “his Tefilah”⁵¹ means his attachment to G-d (explaining the word Tefilah as prayer, where the objective is to cling to G-d).

If not for G-d’s kindness that keeps him alive.

The word “round” is understood here to mean cyclical, referring to a person whose attachment to G-d is sporadic; sometimes he is connected and sometimes he is not. And as something that is round, at times the person is above and at times the person is below. His attachment is not constant and therefore “he does not have a Mitzvah,” which derives from the word tzavsabonding. This means that when a person’s prayer is subject to vacillation it indicates that he is not in a state of bonding and attachment. Had he been so attached he would not have been subject to these fluctuations.

Moreover, there can be danger in this experience. As Rashi explains the round Tefillin can penetrate his skull. When a person falls upon Ad loc.

reciting Tachnun there is a danger that he might crush his skull.⁵²

The meaning of the above⁵³ in spiritual terms is that the falling on our face represents the descent into sub-holy turf to engage in the process of refinement… (as explained at length in the writings of the Arizal⁵⁴). Therefore, if his prayer was such that there is, G-d forbid, no bonding and attachment above, there can be danger to him when he is engaged in the refinement process below.

From this too we can understand the paradox of prayer. On the one hand, prayer represents one’s attachment (which parallels the idea of the The prayer recited after Shemoneh Esrei in which we “fall down” (pray in a sitting position and) supplicating G-d to forgive us for our sins.

“expiration” of the soul). In this state one is not “round,” but is beyond fluctuation, just as G-d to whom one is attached (“With You I do not desire”⁵⁵).

However, simultaneously, this state of being beyond change extends to and affects the necessary changes one is compelled to go through in the course of one’s service throughout the day. The root of this transition [from being beyond change to change] is in prayer itself; in the recitation of Tachnun, which represents the service of refining the world, I.e., the climactic aspect of prayer is to become so attached to G-d, to the exclusion of all else physical and spiritual, that the soul is ready to leave the physical body if it were not for G-d’s kindness as was stated above in the name of the Ba’al Shem Tov.

extending to the lowest realms that are beneath the realm of holiness.

As explained above the paradox of prayer is that while, on one hand, it contains many blessings and requests for personal needs, they are influenced by the state of “With You I desire nothing.” The same is true about our service to G-d in general. To support this premise he cites in the Discourse the Talmudic story in Tractate Kesubos concerning the dancing with the sprig of myrtle.

To explain:

In his Siddur,⁵⁶ The Mitteler Rebbe explains the dancing with three sprigs. Three sprigs represent three approaches, referring to the three pillars That this paradoxical state is not restricted to prayer.

upon which the world stands, which encompasses all of our service to G-d.⁵⁷ The Tzemach Tzedek⁵⁸ and the Rebbe Maharash⁵⁹ (basing their words on the writings of the Arizal⁶⁰) expound on the unity expressed by the Four Species. In the case of the hadasmyrtle, it has to have three leaves coming from one stem.⁶¹ One can therefore conclude that when one has three myrtles (as required in the Lulav and its attached species, where one must have three myrtles⁶²) and each myrtle consists of three leaves emerging from one stem, this Avos 1:2.

represent the concept of incorporation in its most perfect form. On the one hand there is a multitude of details, but, on the other hand they are all incorporated within each other. There can be an added dimension to the above⁶³ based on my father’s⁶⁴ notes⁶⁵ to Iggeres Hakodesh⁶⁶ in relation to the day of a Hilulo. There he first explains the concept of the tzadik who “has left life to the living.” He then discusses the concept of “light implanted for the Although all of the four species represent the idea of unity, there is something unique about the myrtle. Not only does one myrtle have three leaves coming from one stem, but the fact that we need three myrtle, signifies a double unity: three stems from each lave and three leaves bound together.

righteous” which, he writes, is even a more exalted state than leaving life for the living.⁶⁷ He then cites the writings of the Arizal⁶⁸ that the word lulav has the numerical value of the word chaim-life (68). Now the word hadasmyrtle numerically (69) is the same as chaim plus one.⁶⁹ The word ohr-light is the numerical value of the word hadas (69) x 3 (207).

Tehillim 97:11.

The above suggests that the idea of the “Ohrlight implanted for the righteous” is higher than the idea of the tzadik who “has left chaim-life to the living.” This is because ohr is three times chaim with an added one for each of the three chaims. This is similar to the three hadassim where each hadas is equivalent to chaim with an added one.

The explanation given there⁷⁰ is that a tzadik represents the attribute of yesod-foundation⁷¹ numerical value, minus one. Only when we add one to the word, will they match numerically. This method is called the colel. We are not just counting the numerical value of the individual letters, we are also counting the word itself. This usually signifies that the commonality of the two words is only valid when we add the general energy contained in one of the words. In this case, the fact that hadas is one more than chaim, indicates that hadas is greater than the specifics of chaim; only when we deal with the general, all-encompassing and unconventional aspect of chaim does it match the word hadas.

and has the numerical value of three times chaim.⁷² They correspond to the traits of emunah-faith, yirah-reverence and ahavah-love⁷³ that radiate in the attribute of yesod.⁷⁴ This parallels the status of Yosef, who personified the attribute of yesod⁷⁵ and who derived his status from all three Patriarchs. Thus the numerical emotional attributes into malchus-the Divine attribute of speech.

value of the word Yosef is three times the word ben-son⁷⁶ because he was a son of, and a recipient to, all three Patriarchs.

Based on the above it follows, that the flow of sustenance from Yosef after his passing (for “Yosef is the one who supplies grain to the entire land⁷⁷) manifests itself on two levels: the level of chaim-life and, the higher level of ohr-light.⁷⁸ One may suggest that this is also the meaning of the verse, “The sun also arises, and the sun goes down and hastens to his place where he arises.”⁷⁹ The sun’s setting is a metaphor for the passing. And when that happens, the sun shines there (the emphasis of the word “there” is explained in the discourses of the Rebbe Which is, numerically, 156.

Maharash). This suggests that precisely in that situation that the “light implanted for the righteous” shines. This means that there is an increase of Yosef’s status, to the extent that “may G-d increase for me another son,”⁸⁰ the deeper meaning of which, according to the Tzemach Tzedek⁸¹ is that one transforms an “other” into a “son.”⁸² Based on the foregoing that the sprig of myrtle, particularly the three sprigs, represents the three approaches in our general service, which Sefer HaMa’amarim 5630 p. 44 ff.

encompass many details, we can understand the significance of dancing with a sprig of myrtle and especially the dancing with three sprigs. This suggests that all of the specifics of our service must be permeated with the concept of dancing, which signifies holy folly that transcends logic and reason. This is analogous to what was discussed above regarding prayer where one’s heightened state of “With You I want nothing” is discernable in all the specific blessings and requests that follow.

Now we can understand why, in discussing the above in detail, he cites all the particulars of the story in the Talmud, Tractate Kesubos. First he cites the behavior of R. Yehudah son of R. Ila’i who would take one sprig of myrtle and dance with it… The meaning of this citation will be understood by first identifying this Sage. There is a rule (cited by Rashi) that whenever the Talmud Shabbos 127b – derived from Bava Kamma 103b.

refers to a “certain chosid” it refers to either R. Yehudah ben Bava or R. Yehudah the son of R. Ila’i. His piety expressed itself in the manner by which he served G-d and was exemplified by his taking a sprig of myrtle and dancing with it. The emphasis here is on one sprig, to underscore that notwithstanding the three leaves that grow from the stem, it is still only one sprig.⁸³ This serves as a metaphor to prayer where all of the specifics of prayer are experienced in a manner expressed in the verse “With You I desire nothing.”⁸⁴ The term chosid-pious in the Talmud refers to one who goes beyond (or: within) the law, either within the realm of MItzvos between man and G-d or man and man.

This approach is also represented by the concept of chassidus-piety, as Tanya cites the words of Tikkunei Zohar⁸⁵ concerning a chosid: “Who is a chosid? He who is benevolent with his Creator; with his nest…⁸⁶ like a son who exerts himself for his father and mother, whom he loves more than himself… and who sacrifices his life…”⁸⁷ He doesn’t think about himself at all. This attitude is one that transcends logic.

End of Chapter 10.

R. Yehudah the son of R. Ila’i’s lived in a generation about which it was said, “The early ones were like angels.” From his exalted perch his attitude was transmitted, [albeit, with some variation,] also to the generation of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak who lived in the later period of the Amoraim.⁸⁸ In his situation he would dance with three sprigs. In addition to the fact that each sprig is divided into three leaves, this dynamic manifested itself in three separate sprigs. Notwithstanding the existence of three sprigs they were all unified in the holy folly experience of a dance, all of which was due to the influence of R. Yehudah the son of R. Ila’i who would dance with one sprig of myrtle.

Based on the words of our Sages in Tractate Shabbos 112b, according to the version of Tosphos, Chulin 5b s.v. tzadikim. The “early ones” refers to the period of the Tana’im, the Sages quoted in the Mishnah, as opposed to the Amoraim, the Sages quoted in the Talmud..

This dynamic was extended further yet to a subsequent generation, as is indicated by the continuation of the story: “R. Zeira said, the venerable sage [or: old man] is embarrassing us.” Calling him “venerable sage” implies that he [R. Zeira] was in the next generation. Even in that next generation Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak’s influence of dancing with three sprigs was still evident. (His influence was, in turn, a consequence of R. Yehudah the son of R. Ilai’s dancing with but one sprig.)

His actions were not just dancing in “middle of the day,” but rather in a manner that “embarrassed us.”⁸⁹ Embarrassment is a function “Middle of the day” implies that the dance is one that is accompanied with unmitigated love and joy. This was indeed the approach of Rav Shmuel ben Rav Yitzchak and his forebears. However, in the later years of R. Zeira, only a lower level dance was extant; one that is motivated by the inferior trait of yirah-awe, which is associated with embarrassment.

of yirah-awe⁹⁰ and reflects the effects that it had on the behavior (of each and every Jew according to his state) that lasted throughout the day; the influence of holy folly was discernable.

The Talmud concludes:

When he [Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak] passed away, “a pillar of fire appeared, separating him from all those who were near him.” The fact that everyone could see this pillar of fire indicates that his influence had an effect on the entire world. And, simultaneously, they realized that this was an extraordinary and unconventional phenomenon. This explains the usage of the words, “a pillar of fire separated.” The word separated implies that it is phenomenal, beyond the conventional divisions of the world. It is only Talmud (Shabbos 34b) “hichsif” and is translated as “darkened.” R. Zeira was influenced by the holy folly of his predecessors, albeit in a lessened “darkened” state, one of nightfall-embarrassment-yirah as opposed to daytime-ahavah.

that through his conduct he revealed this to the world at large.

The foregoing distinction between the early and later generations can be found analogously in the service of each and every individual. This is the difference between the way things are rooted in their source at the beginning of the day’s service and the way it is manifested after prayer. During prayer, one experiences the feeling of “I am always with You,” which transcends reason and logic. After prayer, “one goes from the synagogue (the House of Prayer) to the Beis Hamidrash (the House of Torah study)”⁹¹ to engage in Torah study which engages the mind I.e., the difference between the generation of R. Yehudah the son of R. Ila’i where only one sprig was used to indicate the utter unity he expressed, and the three sprigs of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, which suggest that the unity is not s pronounced and has been introduced into a world of division.

and is subject to rational comprehension. This is especially true with respect to the Oral Torah. One may recite the blessings for Torah study only when one comprehends the Oral Torah (in accordance with the ruling of the Magen Avraham, cited by the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch⁹²).

This is then followed by the details of one’s activities throughout the day. [All of which are influenced by the initial transcendent feeling of being with G-d in prayer.] This is essentially what the Rambam wrote:⁹³ “A chochom-wise person is discerned by the way he eats and drinks…. This means that even when one eats and drinks one can tell that he is a chochom, with the emphasis on the word Orach Chaim, 50:2.

chochom, which is more than meivin and yode’ah, as the difference between chochma, binah and da’as is explained in several places.⁹⁴ To encapsulate all of the above:

The Rebbe Rashab, in his discourse⁹⁵ on the words “Atem Nitzvaim Hayom-You are all standing today… all of you.”⁹⁶ The words “all of you” have been interpreted by the Alter Rebbe⁹⁷ These two terms describe those who are endowed with superior binah or da’as, two of the three intellectual faculties. Binah is the ability to draw inferences or take a seminal point and elaborate on it. The person endowed with da’as has the ability to connect to an idea in ways that affect his emotions. The chochom, however, possesses a more abstract mode of seeing things that cannot be articulated. They are in a certain sense, supra-rational.

as an expression of absolute and unmitigated unity. Then, the Torah proceeds to enumerate the specific categories of “Heads of your tribes” through the “woodchoppers and water carriers.”

The difference between these two sections of the verse parallels the difference between the “acceptance of the yoke” on Rosh Hashanah, where the Mitzvah of the day is Shofar, and the “acceptance of the yoke throughout the year. On Rosh Hashanah the focus is on the service reflected in the words “all of you together.”⁹⁸ During the rest of the year, the focus is on the varied levels of “your heads” though the “woodchoppers and water carriers” within each person:⁹⁹ The “heads” as it relates specifically to one’s service and the “water carriers” as it relates Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 26b.

specifically to one’s service. The unifying concept represented by the words “all of you together” remains in a latent state.

Within each day’s service the above parallels the “acceptance of the yoke” as it is experienced in the Shemoneh Esrei prayer (as explained in Tanya) and, by contrast, the “acceptance of the yoke” that extends from the prayer throughout the entire day, within all of the specific categories of the “heads” and “water carriers” within each individual as they pertain to our service.

Based on the above,¹⁰⁰ we can also elucidate why the Discourse cites three versions [concerning R. Zeira’s reaction to the pillar of fire that Chapter 39.

separated between Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak and everyone else]:

“The venerable sage has been well served by his sprig” (Shot-ie-ah), (‘the sprig of myrtle with which he used to dance’ Rashi).

Another version: “The venerable sage has been well served by his folly” (Shtusay), (‘for he clowned like a fool’ — Rashi).

A third version: “The venerable sage has been well served by his policy” (Shitosay), (‘by his customary course of conduct’ (Rashi).

There is a pattern here:

In the first version, the emphasis is on holy, supra-rational folly as it is restricted to action; he danced with the sprig of myrtle. In this mode, His folly was limited to an action he performed. There is no indication that it affected his thought processes and other aspects of his life. The next two versions describe how it affected his mindset as well as his conduct throughout the day.

one’s understanding and comprehension, when learning the laws pertaining to a Mitzvah, is limited. Similarly, the specific reasons and meditations for each Mitzvah is based on limited logic. It is only the action that transcends reason and logic.

This indeed is the primary attitude one must have in the performance of a Mitzvah: the general intent to fulfill G-d’s will (as explained in the end of Ateres Rosh), without regard to the specific character of the individual Mitzvah.¹⁰¹ Drush l’Aseres Yemei Teshuvah 53a. 59a.

The Alter Rebbe expresses this concept in his statement (a similar one can be found in the Guide for the Perplexed as well¹⁰²): “If we were commanded to chop wood, for example…”¹⁰³ (however, this terminology calls for further clarification).

The next step, alluded to by the second version, is to introduce this concept into and enable it to permeate one’s intellectual realm, whereby even one’s intellect, understanding and comprehension manifest themselves in a manner of folly and transcend reason and logic.

This is why, in the second version, he emphasizes the idea of how “the venerable sage has been well served by his folly.” In stating this LIkkutei Torah, Shelach 40a. See also Hemshech 5666 p. 54.

he underscores that his dancing was one of folly. Dancing, in and of itself, though not walking, but going out of boundaries, is not necessarily a mode of service that is considered folly. Indeed, there are forms of choreographed dance, where the movement of the legs correspond to the musical notes.

He thus stresses in the second version, “the venerable sage has been well served by his folly,” that the dancing itself was in a mode of folly.

This is then followed by a more advanced state indicated by the third version: “The venerable sage has been well served by his policy” (Shitosay), (‘by his customary course of conduct’ (Rashi). The suggestion here is that the transcendent folly became a part of his policy and routine behavior throughout the day; not only during prayer and Torah study. Rather, in each specific detail of his life one would be able to discern his supra-rational folly. (This is analogous to the expression “Torah is his profession” which suggests that in everything he does one can discern that his profession is Torah.)

The above represents the general thrust of the chapter [five of the Discourse] that discusses holy folly in the context of the boards of the Mishkan which were constructed out of Shittim wood. The Discourse cites the foregoing passage of the Talmud to show how the expression of holy folly can also be found in the Talmud, the revealed part of Torah.¹⁰⁴ He also brings all the details of the Talmudic narrative to indicate that it does not suffice for this approach to be executed in a general and Shabbos 11a.

peripheral manner. It is crucial that it subsequently extends to and permeates one’s specific activities (as explained above at length). Only through this detailed approach can one prevail over and nullify all of the particulars of the folly of the “other side.”

This is analogous to the discussion in Sefer Hamitzvos of Tzemach Tzedek (the Mitzvah of Confession and Teshuvah), that the confession for sins requires saying a litany of sins following the entire alphabet to cut off all of the sources of sustenance of the forces of the “other side.”¹⁰⁵ End of Chapter 1 (38b)

Once this is accomplished, one must then elicit a renewed light even as far as eliciting “a pillar of fire that separated him from all those who were near him.” This separation implies that there was a gulf between himself and the entire system of hishtalshelus that he transcended.

This¹⁰⁶ prepares us for the Messianic Age. As explained at length in subsequent chapters of the Discourse concerning the squandering of the treasures during wartime. The treasure is the “infinite light that rises above in an unlimited way and endlessly extends below.”¹⁰⁷ The term hishtalshelus describes the chain of worlds and levels beginning with the Divine worlds that followed the tzimtzum, G-d’s contraction of His infinite light, and continuing downward until the Creation of our physical world.

All of this extends below “ten handbreadths,” in our reality, so that it can be seen with eyes of flesh until such time that we will once again have the Divine Presence reside in the lowest of realms as it was at the beginning of Creation.

Our actions and service during the period of exile enhances these achievements and endows them with greater force and strength, “double power,”¹⁰⁸ because it involves the service of Teshuvah.¹⁰⁹ Indeed, Moshiach¹¹⁰ “will lead the righteous to Teshuvah.”¹¹¹ And, “Israel will do A Talmudic expression the Rebbe used frequently do connote the idea that the Divine revelation does not remain in a spiritual realm but will literally be present within the confines of our physical world.

Teshuvah and they will be redeemed immediately.”¹¹² This will happen, literally, in the near future!

concept has been elaborated on in the talk of Acharon shel Pesach , 5694 (Likkutei Dibburim, vol. 1, p. 146aff. See also Zohar III, 153b.

Translated with an introduction and notes by Rabbi Heschel Greenberg, from Ma’amarim of the Rebbe, Volume One: Basi L’Gani (Jewish Discovery Center).

Shir HaShirim 5:1. The entire Shir Hashirim is a metaphor which describes the mutual love between G- d and the Jewish people. ↩
Literally the “Master of the Wedding.” The day a tzadik passes is called a wedding because it is the day his soul is reunited with its Maker. ↩
As stated in the Introduction, the Previous Rebbe issued a discourse on the occasion of Yud Shevat 5710, the day of his histalkus. He also submitted three additional discourses, which were continuations of the first one. They comprise a total of 20 chapters. ↩
For an extensive treatment of the meaning of the “essence” of the Shechinah, see the Rebbe’s first discourse upon accepting the leadership of Chabad, s.v. Basi L’Gani 5711. ↩
Terumah 25:8. ↩
See Tanchuma, Bechukosai 3. Naso 16. Bereishis Rabbah end of chapter 3. Bamidbar Rabbah 13:6. Tanya, beginning o chapter 36. The notion that G-d’s rationale for creation is tomake this world a dwelling for Him is one of the most fundamental teachings of Chassidus, particularly in the Rebbe’s thought. See Bringing Heaven Down to Earth, by Rabbi Feitel Levin for an extensive treatment of this subject. ↩
The fact that it surrounded the entire Mishkan and was not just some small part of its construction dictates that the Mishkan’s spiritual role is somehow linked to the Shittim wood. ↩
The fact that it goes out of its way to identify the word as Shittim (and does not just say that it had to be made of wood) suggests that there I a particular emphasis on this type of wood. ↩
Of the Previous Rebbe, Chapter 5 ↩
Sanhedrin 90a. See Sotah 8bff. ↩
Chapter 3. ↩
Ibid. ↩
In the original version of this Discourse the Rebbe added what seems to be a parenthetical statement and was lft out of the Lahak version: “Folly is either deviating above or below the logic and rationality. Except that going below is folly of the “other side,” whereas going ↩
Verse 22, It is noteworthy that, beginning with the 11th day of Nissan of the year 5734, this verse is recited in conjunction with the custom to recite the psalm which corresponds to one’s age (Igros Kodesh of the Rebbe Rayatz volume 1, p. 31. Volume 10 p. 53). The Rebbe was then 72 years old and this was the Psalm that Chassidim would recite every day during that year. ↩
The word “You” in this verse is understood to mean Your very Essence, in contrast with lower manifestations of G-dly light that are mere reflections and contain a mere glimmer of G-d’s infinite and essential Being. ↩
In the original discourse, chapter 2. See also the discourse s.v. to’amah 5709 (Sefer HaMa’amarim 5709 p. 27) and the notes ad loc. ↩
See Zohar II, 239a. III, 26b. Cited later in the series, Chapter 18. The korban is not offered to any manifestation of G-d but to G-d’s infinite light. ↩
See n. 21. ↩
Obviously, the Rebbe’s emphasis on precluding and going beyond knowledge does not mean to negate using our mind in the service of G-d. An integral part of Judaism involves study of Torah, which is an intellectual ↩
Not only does prayer connect us to the heavens during our prayer, it also has elevates all of our thought, speech and action of that day. As such, prayer is much more than just another aspect of Jewish practice it brings fulfillment to all aspects o Jewish life. ↩
Rama, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, beginning. ↩
Tehillim 16:8. Prayer is so central to our service of G-d, inasmuch as it affects all of our endeavors, and holy folly is connected to prayer as will be shown below, it follows that holy folly is central to our service in general and, more ↩
Which refers to our foolishness, i.e., serving G-d with “holy folly.” ↩
Verse 25. ↩
Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefilah (Sefer Hamitzvos of Tzemach Tzedek 138, end of side a) chapter 40. This is cited in Hayom Yom, entry 18 Kislev. ↩
In Yiddish. ↩
See Zohar II:55b. III:267a. Likkutei Torah, Shlach 42c., et al. The term “service” relates to prayer which is called “service of the heart.” Thus, the concepts of love and prayer are interchangeable. ↩
Kesubos 17a. ↩
The Talmud continues: Said R. Zeira: “This venerable sage is embarrassing us” (‘by making light of the respect due to Torah scholars through his undignified behavior’ — Rashi). ↩
The Mishkan’s construction of shittim wood is not incidental to the Mishkan. It captures the entire focus of the Mishkan to create a Sanctuary for G-d in our physical world. This, we accomplish, only through holy folly, not through conventional methods of holiness. The reason for this is that in order to reverse the negative form of folly that caused sin and the departure of G-d from our world we must meet it measure for measure as explained above. Moreover, as is explained in the text, in order for us to get close to an Infinite G-d one must unleash unconventional soul powers; holy folly. ↩
In a note penned by the Rebbe, the Rebbe writes: “Furthermore, the versions are contradictory: a sprig is outside the person, whereas a policy and folly are intrinsic to the person. The Rebbe’s question here seems to be: How can we compare the idea of a policy of folly to a mere physical ↩
Siddur im Dach – 128aff ↩
Sefer HaMa’amarim 5658 p. 210. ↩
Discourse 26:1. ↩
In chapter sis of the Discourse it highlights another aspect of the Mishkan’s boards. The word for board is keresh which contains the same letters as the word sheker-falsehood and kesher-bond. The purpose of the Mishkan is to transform the falsehood of the world into a bond with G-d. The Discourse then goes into the minute details of the word sheker; how two of its letters kuf and reish represent negative forces and are paralleled by the similar letters that reflect the powers of holiness. All of these explanations point to the Discourses intent of demonstrating the need to identify the specific negative characteristics of evil so that we can unleash its parallel positive forces. Focusing on the general situation does not suffice. The Rebbe will use prayer as an example, that notwithstanding the lofty ↩
See the original Discourse (Chapter 6ff) and the corresponding discourses of the Rebbe, for analysis of these letters. ↩
II Shmuel 23:1. ↩
See also Likkutei Sichos, volume 22, p. 116-117. Toras Menachem, Bechuksai 5744. ↩
See, however, Ramban’s criticisms on Rambam’s Sefer Hamitzvos (Mitzvas Aseh 5) and commentaries ad loc. Semak, Mitzvah 12. Rashbatz in his Sfer Zohar Harakia, 12. ↩
Shabbos 11a and Rashi’s commentary. ↩
Rif end of Eiruvin. See Encyclopedia Talmudis (Volume 9), entry halacha, p. 250ff. See there for cross references. ↩
See Megilas Esther on Sefer Hamitzvos loc. cit. See also Alter Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh, p. 33ff. Sefer Hamitzvos of Tzemach Tzedek 115a. Letter of 11th of Nissan 5716 Igros Kodesh, volume 12, p. 412. ↩
Zohar III 257a. ↩
Chapter 4:4. ↩
Although he lived before the composition of the prayers by the Men of the Great Assembly who lived ↩
Rashi ad loc. ↩
See Zohar III 94b. ↩
Sec. 35. 42. ↩
Or Torah 407. 479. ↩
Megillah 24b. ↩
Singular of Tefillin but interpreted by the Maggid to mean prayer which has the same root meaning of Tefillin, i.e. a bond. ↩
Commentary of Rabenu Chananel ad loc. ↩
In spiritual terms. ↩
See Pri Eitz Chaim, Sha’ar Halulv, Chpater 3. ↩
The state of attachment to G-d to the point where one desires absolutely nothing but G-d’s essence is the highest state of attachment to G-d. Just like G-d, obviously, does not change or experience fluctuations, so too, a person who is one with G-d does not experience change. ↩
Siddur im Dach 128a ff. ↩
Here we see the paradox of one branch containing the totality of our service to G-d in which there is but one stem from which three separate myrtles emerge, as will be explained. ↩
See Or HaTorah, Vayakhel, p. 2098 ↩
Hemshech V’kacha, Chapter 87. ↩
See Pri Eitz Chaim, Sha’ar Halulav, Chapter 3. ↩
Sukkah 32b. ↩
See also Tikkunei Zohar, ikkun 21(56b). ↩
Concerning the uniqueness of the hadas. ↩
Literally: “My lord, father, master and teacher.” ↩
LIkkutei Levi Yitzchak, Heoros l’Tanya p. 3. Seee there also p. 22 ↩
Sec. 27. ↩
The tzadik that leaves this world generates and leaves two dimensions of his spiritual energy to the world, particularly to his disciples; the first is the spiritual concept of chaim-life and the second is spiritual or-light. Likkutei Levi Yitzchak makes the point here that ohrlight is higher than chaim-life and that the concept of light here is associated with the myrtle. This reinforces the point made above that the hadas is superior to the lulav. While the lulav is connected to chaim, the hadas is connected to ohr. ↩
Pri Eitz Chaim, Sha’ar Halulav ibid. ↩
The technical term for “plus one” in a gematria, mentioned here, is the colel, which means the general or encompassing aspect of the word. This refers to a method of gematria where two words share the same ↩
Likkutei Levi Yitzchak ibid. ↩
Yesod is the sixth emotional attribute and is the Divine power that contains and channels all the other ↩
Tzadik is numerically 204, which is 3 times chaim- 68. ↩
These are the primary traits of the tzadik discussed in Iggeres Hakodesh that the tzadik endows to his followers. These three traits are associated with the theme of chaim as explained there. ↩
As stated in n. 94, yesod contains all the elements of the higher attributes. ↩
Yosef is referred to as a tzadik because of how he resisted the temptation posed by Potiphar’s wife. The trait of yesod, metaphorically associated with the male reproductive organ inasmuch as it channels the potential for life, is the symbol of the tzadik. Hence, the verse (Mishlei 10:25): “tzadik yesod olam-the tzadik is the foundation of the world.” ↩
Ben is numerically 52. 52x3=156. ↩
Miketz 42:6 ↩
The Rebbe is alluding to the Ba’al Hahilulo whose name is Yosef and who continues to channe; both traits of chaim and ohr. ↩
Koheles 1:5. ↩
Vayeitzei 30:24. This was the reason Yosef was so named because of his mother Rachel’s prayer that she have an increase (“Yosef”) of another son. ↩
Or HaTorah, Vayeitzei 220a ff. Vaychi 386a-b. ↩
This interpretation retranslates the words “may G-d increase for me another son” as “May there be an increase so that the other becomes a son.” This suggests that Yosef, specifically, has the power to transform even an outsider into an insider. This unique power is reserved for Yosef and ties in with the power of the hadas, which embodies both the trait of chaim and ohr. ↩
This highlights the concept of unity informing and permeating the multiplicity. In other words, R. Yehudah was able to see through the appearance of division to see true unity. He was totally unaffected by the multifarious nature of the world around him. ↩
No matter how many personal requests we make in prayer we are totally unaffected by these needs and are devoted to being one with G-d. ↩
Introduction (p. 1b.) ↩
It is a play on words. Kono can mean Creator and can also mean nest. The import of this retranslation is that the chosid seeks not a personal relationship with G-d, his Creator, but wants to fulfill G-d’s will in making the world a dwelling for G-d—G-d’s “nest.” The import of this is that the chosid has no interest in any personal gain, not even the loftiest spiritual experiences inherent in getting close to G-d. All the chosid cares about is to fulfill G-d’s will in making our physical world a dwelling place for Him. This totally selfless approach goes beyond the limits of rationality and is an expression of holy folly. ↩
Zohar III (Raya Mehemna) 281a. ↩
About which it was said, “If the early generation were like angels then we are like humans…” ↩
Perhaps the Rebbe is reinterpreting the word for embarrassment used by R. Zeira “machsif.” This term is also used to describe the beginning of nightfall in the ↩
See Tanya, Chapter 4 (8a). Iggeres Hakodesh, end of sec. 15. Likkutei Torah, Nitzavim 51d. et al. ↩
End of Berchos, Shulchan Aruch, Admor Hazaken, Orach Chaim 155:1. One must go straight from morning prayers to the House of Study to learn Torah before engaging in one’s personal activities. ↩
Hilchos Talmud Torah, end of Chapter 2. As opposed to the recitation of the Written Torah, where no comprehension is necessary to qualify as Torah study and the required blessing before such study. ↩
Hilchos De’os 5:1. ↩
See preceding note. ↩
See end of discourse s.v. Atem Nitzavim 5672 (Hemshech Te’arev, Volume 1 p. 126. 5675, Volume 2, end of 1139ff). ↩
Nitzavim 29:9-10 ↩
Likkutei Torah, beginning of Nitzavim ↩
On Rosh Hashanah the sensation is that there is no division because one is in close proximity to the overarching presence of G-d in relation to which everyone is equal. ↩
The focus is on our individuality and the varied and individual faculties we all possess. ↩
That the general thrust of our service to G-d must be followed by extending the inspiration to the particulars. ↩
Each Mitzvah possesses two functions and therefore two thoughts which accompany the observance of any Mitzvah. The first is the general idea that one is fulfilling G-d’s will. From that perspective there is really no difference between Mitzvos; they are all G-d’s will. There is a second aspect of a Mitzvah: Each Mitzvah possesses a specific function and accomplishes something different from every other Mitzvah. To make the fulfillment of the Mitzvah resonate with us we try to concentrate on and understand the specific dynamics of the Mitzvah. From this vantage point there are no two Mitzvos alike. ↩
Part III, Chapter 51 in a note. See Likkutei Sichos, Volume 21 n.51. ↩
The suggestion here is that even if the commandments made no sense and were futile actions we would still do it because it is G-d’s will. ↩
Not only is the concept of holy folly rooted in the esoteric teachings of Judaism, or alluded to in the Psalm quoted above, it is articulated quite clearly in the Talmud. The point made by this fact is that holy folly is not an esoteric and elusive ideal. It is part and parcel of the most revealed an accessible parts of Torah. ↩
The Hebrew Alphabet is more than just human instruments of communication. The Hebrew letters and words are Divine instruments responsible for all that exists. By reciting 22 words of confession, each beginning with another letter of the Alphabet, one is thereby uprooting the spiritual negative energy generated by sins. This, the Rebbe states, can serve as an analogy for the detailed citation of the Talmudic story. By focusing on all the particulars, one can unleash detailed positive energy (“holy folly”) to neutralize the detailed negative energy (folly of the “other side.”) ↩
The approach of unconventional Holy folly and the renewed light it generates is a way of preparing us for an unconventional Messianic Era. ↩
See Tikkunei Zohar, end of Tikkun 57. Zohar Chadash, Yisro 34c. See also Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 19. ↩
Expression borrowed from Iyov 11:6. ↩
See Shemos Rabbah 46:1. ↩
The process of Teshuvah is specifically connected to Moshiach. Even the righteous who have not sinned would be lacking the power and benefits of Teshuvah. Moshiach will rectify that lacuna. ↩
Likkutei Torah, Rosh Hashanah 58d. Ha’azinu 85b. Shemini Atzeres 92b. Shir HaShirim 45a, 50b. This ↩
Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 7:5. In this quote, the Rebbe is stating that Teshuvah is the catalyst for the Messianic Era. In the preceding quote the intent was to show that without Teshuvah something is missing and therefore the righteous would be deprived if Moshiach would not endow them with the power of Teshuvah as well. ↩

The Ma’amar

Translated and Annotated by

Introduction

The Ma’amar

Footnotes

Keep reading

Get a weekly dose of inspiration in your inbox.