Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IX, p. 61ff.

I

The Tur[1] states that from Parshas Bereishis until the Seventeenth of Tammuz, "the haftoros reflect the content of the parshiyos. From [the 17th of Tammuz] onward, they reflect [the spiritual themes] of the times and the events [that took place at those times]."

Nevertheless, since all concepts within the Torah are extremely precise,[2] the fact that the haftoros read from the Seventeenth of Tammuz onward have become associated with these parshiyos, [for example,] Divrei Yirmeyahu for Parshas Pinchas (or Parshas Mattos)... Nachamu for Parshas Vaes'chanan, indicates that although primarily "they reflect [the spiritual themes] of the times and the events [that took place at those times]," they also share a thematic connection to the parshiyos themselves.

With regard to our parshah: The reason why Nachamu, nachamu is the haftorah of Parshas Vaes'chanan "reflects [the spiritual themes] of the times and the events [that took place at those times]." For on Shabbos Parshas Vaes'chanan, we read the first of the seven haftoros of comfort. Nevertheless, these parshiyos[3] and these haftoros also share a thematic connection[4] [as will be explained].[5]

II

[Commenting] on the phrase:[6] Nachamu nachamu ami, "Take comfort, take comfort, My people," the Midrash[7] states that the repetition - "Take comfort, take comfort" - implies that [the Jews will be] comforted once for the destruction of the First Beis HaMikdash and a second time for the destruction of the Second Beis HaMikdash.

Explanation is necessary: Comfort is granted when a person suffers misfortune, Heaven forbid, and the person trying to offer comfort cannot compensate for the loss. Hence, he tries to comfort the person who suffered the misfortune. Accordingly, when a person suffers two losses, it is appropriate that he should be comforted twice - [once] for [each of] the two losses which he suffered.

In the present situation, by contrast, the comfort is the promise that the Beis HaMikdash will be rebuilt.[8] The First Beis HaMikdash was on a higher plane than the Second Beis HaMikdash. ([As our Sages commented:][9] The Second Beis HaMikdash lacked five [manifestations of holiness that were present in the First Beis HaMikdash.]) In the Future, we will be comforted for the First Beis HaMikdash, for the Third Beis HaMikdash will contain all the elements that were present in the First Beis HaMikdash. Why then is it necessary to be comforted for the Second Beis HaMikdash? Seemingly, the comfort for its destruction is also included in the comfort granted for the First Beis HaMikdash.

[This difficulty] can be reconciled as follows:[10] By and large, the Second Beis HaMikdash was lacking when compared to the First Beis HaMikdash. Nevertheless, [from a certain perspective,] the Second Beis HaMikdash possessed an advantage over the First Beis HaMikdash. In this vein, the Talmud[11] interprets the verse:[12] "The glory of this latter house will surpass that of the first" as meaning that the glory of the Second Beis HaMikdash[13] will be greater than that of the First in that its building was larger[14] and it endured for a longer time.[15]

Therefore the verse states: "Take comfort, take comfort," once for the First Beis HaMikdash and once for the Second Beis HaMikdash. For the Third Beis HaMikdash will compensate for both losses, for it will possess the positive advantages of both the First Beis HaMikdash and the Second Beis HaMikdash.[16]

III

To understand the advantage of the Second Beis HaMikdash over the First Beis HaMikdash, we must explain the advantage (from an inner [spiritual perspective]) of the Beis HaMikdash (in general, including even the First Beis HaMikdash) over the Sanctuary. [In that vein, our Sages explain[17]] that the Beis HaMikdash is considered "G-d's permanent dwelling," while the Sanctuary is considered as [merely] a temporary dwelling[18] for Him.[19]

The holiness which [permeated] the Sanctuary [came as a result of the manifestation of G-d's presence,] "I will dwell within."[20] It encompassed all the elements of the Sanctuary, not only the curtains and boards (which came from the animal and plant kingdoms[21]), but also the earth of the Sanctuary (which was inanimate matter). Nevertheless, the indwelling of G-d's presence was not motivated by the material entities themselves (the curtains or the earth), but came because of His initiative.[22] {And yet, because the light which shined in the Sanctuary was unlimited, it was able to be drawn down until the lowest levels, even to inanimate matter.}

[Thus the revelation within the Sanctuary followed the motif of revelation from above.] For this reason, when the Sanctuary was [disassembled and] moved from a particular place, the holiness [of the Sanctuary] did not remain within the earth in the place [where it had stood previously].

In contrast, the holiness of the Beis HaMikdash came about because of the material entities from which it was constructed.[23] Therefore even after the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, its site remained holy.[24]

This is the inner reason why the Beis HaMikdash was built in the time of King Shlomo, an era when "the disk of the moon was full."[25] The moon is a recipient of the sun's light, comparable to the Sefirah of Malchus (in contrast to the sun which is a source of influence - and hence, comparable to the spiritual level of Z'eir Anpin).[26] Since the new development brought about by the Beis HaMikdash involves primarily (not drawing down G-dly influence from above), but refining the created beings, it is therefore connected to the fulfillment of the moon.[27]

IV

There are two patterns within the motif of the refinement of the created beings:

1. Their refinement stems from [the revelation of] light from above. This can be compared to a teacher who instructs a student in such a manner that through the concepts which he taught the student, the student himself (on his own initiative) can appreciate the teacher's ultimate intent.[28] Nevertheless, the ability of the student to appreciate his teacher's ultimate intent on his own initiative stems from the light of the intellect which his teacher granted him. [29]

2. The refinement of the created beings does not come from a light which shines upon them from above, but from their very own selves. Because G-dliness is the truth of their existence, they will ultimately become refined until "all flesh will see ... that the mouth of G-d has spoken."[30] The perception will be motivated, not by the revelation of "G-d's mouth," but by the "flesh" itself.

To cite a parallel: Teshuvah in the simplest sense, (i.e., teshuvah for one's sins). Generally, teshuvah is not motivated by a revelation from above. {On the contrary, (before he repents,) a baal teshuvah is distant from G-dliness and is incapable of perceiving G-dly light.} Instead, [the impetus to do teshuvah] comes from the baal teshuvah himself,[31] from the fact that the essence of a Jew is G-dliness. [This inner truth has] apparent effects [as well]. Hence, without exception, every Jew desires to fulfill G-d's will, it is only that his natural inclination compels him [and prevents him from doing so], as the Rambam states in his renowned ruling.[32]

V

Just as there are two patterns with regard to the refinement of the created beings; so, too there are two modes [of revelation] with regard to the moon (which reflects the level of Malchus, the source for [the existence of] the created beings): [the moon's] present [mode of revelation] and the mode which will exist in the ultimate Future.

At present, the moon is a recipient [of the light] of the sun (which represents Z'eir Anpin26). Nevertheless, when it receives light from the sun, [it does not merely reflect that light]. Instead, it produces its own light,[33] in a manner comparable to the analogy of the student mentioned previously. Through receiving concepts from his source of influence, he is able to develop new concepts on his own initiative.

In the ultimate Future, however, "the light of the moon will resemble the light of the sun."[34] The light of the moon will not need [to receive influence from] the light of the sun. Instead, it will shine like the light of the sun which gives off light on its own initiative.[35]

{[This pattern will continue] until "our eyes will shine like the sun and the moon."[36] Our eyes (- and more precisely, our pupils[37] -) will shine with their own light, and they will not need - as is necessary at present - the light of the sun or the moon to see.[38]}

VI

The three concepts mentioned above - influence which is drawn down from above, the refinement of the created beings because of a revelation of light, and their refinement on their own initiative - [have parallels in] our Divine service. In general terms, they can be interpreted as referring to Torah study, the observance of mitzvos (or prayer), and teshuvah.

The Torah represents influence drawn down from above. [G-d] "gave us His Torah."[39] And "Moshe received the Torah ... and conveyed it...."[40] Even the study of the Torah which involves effort so that the student comprehends [the subject matter he is studying] and his understanding becomes unified with the Torah which he studies,[41] [does not represent a departure from this motif].[42] For his primary thrust is not to make a [conceptual] contribution of his own, but to labor to grasp what the Torah says. [His efforts are focused on] revealing the Torah's teachings.

Mitzvos, by contrast, are intended primarily [to bring about a change in the material substance of the world], to make the parchment and wool into tefillin and tzitzis respectively. Thus it is written:[43] "And you shall make them," i.e., it is man, as it were, who is the one who brings about the mitzvah.[44] [Moreover, the root of the term , "And you shall make them," also serves as the root of the Hebrew term , which has the connotation of compulsion,] as in the expression:[45] "We compel [them to give] tzedakah." This compulsion, and the bittul [the mitzvos] bring about within the person who fulfills them, [improve his character], as the Midrash states:[46] "The mitzvos were given solely to refine the created beings."

{Another point: The concept of mitzvos can only be understood on the premise that there exists a person who will observe the mitzvos. For mitzvos are commands and directives for a person to observe. The Torah, by contrast, exists [independently]. Before [there was] a person to study it, [it existed].[47]}

Just as there is a difference between the Torah and the mitzvos in the human sphere, so, too, there is a difference - indeed, a more definitive one - between them in the manner in which they relate to the world at large. Although the Torah speaks about material entities, it merely renders judgments concerning them. It does not enclothe itself in them.[48] The mitzvos, by contrast, become enclothed in the material entities with which they are performed to the extent that these entities themselves become holy.

This is one of the reasons why the Torah is described with the analogy of daylight, while mitzvos are described with the analogy of candlelight.[49] Daylight does not produce an internalized effect[50] within the area in which it shines.[51] There is no change in that area at all. Candlelight, by contrast, transforms the wick and the fuel to (fire and) light.[52]

VII

Nevertheless, even the refinement of a person and our worldly environment brought about by mitzvos is associated with G-dly light. It is true that the refinement is internalized within the person and within the world. Nevertheless, [this refinement comes as a result of] listening to the commandment of the Creator and being willing - because of the acceptance of G-d's yoke - to fulfill His will.

A baal teshuvah, by contrast, [does not have a connection with G-dly light]. Through his sins, he has thrown off G-d's yoke and he is distant from [the revelation of] G-dly light (from above). His teshuvah comes, (as explained above, section 4,) from his own[53] initiative.[54]

There is also a difference with regard to the effect within the world at large. Mitzvos are able to refine only the sparks of G-dliness that are enclothed in permitted entities,[55] which stem from kelipas nogah.[56] (The sparks [of G-dliness] which, by contrast, have fallen into forbidden entities which stem from the three totally impure kelipos cannot be elevated through the mitzvos.[57] Through teshuvah, by contrast, even the sparks [of G-dliness] enclothed in purposeful sins (which stem from the three impure kelipos[58]) are transformed[59] into mitzvos.[60]

VIII

Based on the above, we can also appreciate the advantage which the Second Beis HaMikdash possesses over the First Beis HaMikdash.[61] In the era of the First Beis HaMikdash, it was ordained that the Jews conduct their Divine service primarily as tzaddikim, "righteous men."[62] Accordingly, the potential had not yet been granted for the world - as it exists within its own context - to become holy.

In the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash, by contrast, the Jewish people were on the level of baalei teshuvah. Therefore the Second Beis HaMikdash allowed for the possibility that material substance - as it exists within its own context - would become a dwelling for G-d.

This also explains why it was Koresh - a gentile[63] - who gave the order to build the Second Beis HaMikdash.[64] This resembles the concept of teshuvah, that a person's unintentional sins - and even his intentional sins - are transformed into merits.

IX

[On this basis, we can appreciate the necessity for the Jews to be] comforted twice: once for the First Beis HaMikdash and once for the Second Beis HaMikdash. For each one possessed an advantage over the other. The advantage of the First Beis HaMikdash is that it revealed a higher light. Since the Jewish people were on the level of tzaddikim, they were more appropriate mediums for G-dliness. This approach was reflected in the Beis HaMikdash as well.

With regard to the Divine service that relates to the world itself, however, the Second Beis HaMikdash represented a higher rung. {This also explains why the Second Beis HaMikdash surpassed the First in size (place) and endured for a longer period (time).[65] For the gestalt of our world is dependent on time and space.[66]}

From this, we can appreciate the advantage of the Third Beis HaMikdash - that it will fuse both advantages together - and thus serve as comfort for both the First and Second Batei HaMikdash.[67]

X

The difference between the era of the First Beis HaMikdash and that of the Second Beis HaMikdash is also expressed (as are all concepts of P'nimiyus HaTorah) in Nigleh, the revealed dimension of Torah scholarship, and even in Halachah, Torah law.

From one perspective, in the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash, the holiness of Eretz Yisrael was on a lower level than in the era of the First Beis HaMikdash. Thus we find that ([there is a different status in the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash] with regard to certain laws [regarding the status of Eretz Yisrael]).[68] Similarly, there is a difference with regard to the laws regarding the sounding of the shofar when Rosh HaShanah falls on Shabbos. In the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash, "[the shofar] would be sounded in the [Beis Ha]Mikdash, but not in the country as a whole,"[69] while in the era of the First Beis HaMikdash, by contrast (even when Rosh HaShanah fell on Shabbos[70]), the shofar is sounded, not only in the Beis HaMikdash, but also in the country as a whole.

The Alter Rebbe explains[71] this concept [as follows]: The G-dly influence which is drawn down through sounding the shofar when Rosh HaShanah falls on Shabbos is extremely elevated. [This level] can only be drawn down in the Beis HaMikdash.[72] Nevertheless, (in the era of the First Beis HaMikdash, the shofar was sounded in the entire country, because the holiness of the Beis HaMikdash was drawn down throughout the country at large.

Nevertheless, [there is an advantage to the holiness of Eretz Yisrael in the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash over that of the era of the First Beis HaMikdash]. After the destruction of the First Beis HaMikdash, the holiness of the land was nullified. [During the Babylonian exile, the concept of the sanctity of the land did not apply.] After the destruction of the Second Beis HaMikdash, by contrast, the sanctity of the land endured.[73]

The concept can be explained as follows: With regard to the holiness of Eretz Yisrael, there was a higher level revealed in the era of the First Beis HaMikdash. With regard to the potential for that holiness to endure - i.e., not to cease its connection with this earthly realm, [there was an advantage to the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash].

[The perpetuation of the holiness of the land] is dependent on the refinement of the worldly realm. [This dimension received its] primary [emphasis] during the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash when the reentry to Eretz Yisrael (and the holiness of the land) came about through [the directives of] Koresh.[74]

XI

Every concept has its source in the Torah itself. [The source within] the Torah for the two [motifs of spiritual expression, that of] tzaddikim and baalei teshuvah, are the First Tablets and the Second Tablets.

From the standpoint of the First Tablets, the Jews [enjoyed] "freedom," "no nation or people could rule over them."[75] This parallels the era of the First Beis HaMikdash, when the light of the Beis HaMikdash shone throughout Eretz Yisrael in its totality.[76]

From the standpoint of the Second Tablets, by contrast, only a person who actually occupies himself with the Torah can be considered as "free."[77] This parallels the Second Beis HaMikdash where the light illuminated only the Beis HaMikdash itself, not the outlying areas.76

Conversely, however, because the First Tablets were a present given from above, it is possible that they could be broken. [Breaking them, however,] affected only their lower dimensions, (the actual physical tablets). The letters, by contrast, rose heavenward.[78] This parallels the holiness of the land which was nullified after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash except in the place of the Beis HaMikdash itself.[79]

With regard to the Second Tablets, by contrast, since they came after the First Tablets were broken and after the compensation for this (through teshuvah), they were never broken.[80] This parallels the holiness of Eretz Yisrael during the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash which continues forever.

XII

On this basis, we can appreciate the connection between Parshas Vaes'chanan and the twofold comfort [granted] for both the First Beis HaMikdash and the Second Beis HaMikdash. [Parshas Vaes'chanan] contains a recapitulation of the Ten Commandments. One of the differences between the narrative of the Ten Commandments recounted in our Torah reading and that of Parshas Yisro is that the story of the Ten Commandments described in Parshas Yisro took place before the sin of the Golden Calf, when the Jews were on the level of tzaddikim. [Moshe's retelling of the Ten Commandments in Parshas Vaes'chanan,[81] by contrast, took place after the Sin of the Golden Calf and many other undesirable factors. Indeed, this parshah follows in sequence to the previous parshah which relates [Moshe's] rebuke [of the Jewish people]. Moreover, within this parshah itself, there are words of rebuke concerning undesirable conduct.[82]

Nevertheless, this parshah relates the entire story of the giving of the Torah as it took place before the sin. Thus this parshah [parallels the Third Beis HaMikdash which] combines the Divine service of tzaddikim (the First Beis HaMikdash) and baalei teshuvah (the Second Beis HaMikdash).

XIII

The fusion of the First Beis HaMikdash and the Second Beis HaMikdash is also alluded to in the (first word and) name of the parshah, Vaes'chanan, "And I beseeched." [As explained on many occasions,] the name communicates the fundamental theme of the entire parshah.

Vaes'chanan is numerically equivalent to 515.[83] In Chassidus,[84] it is explained that the number 500 reflects the middos - the Sefiros which correspond to the emotions. They relate to the letters vav hei [from G-d's name ]. (Hence our Sages[85] speak of the world which is brought into being from the middos - the seven days of creation - as being measured in sets of 500.)

Fifteen (is numerically equivalent to the letters yud hei and) refers to the intellectual faculties. Thus Vaes'chanan which is 515 (500 and 15 in one word) reflects the fusion of the intellectual faculties with the emotional characteristics.[86]

This also alludes to the fusion of the First Beis HaMikdash with the Second Beis HaMikdash, because the First Beis HaMikdash[87] is associated with the letters yud hei, and the Second Beis HaMikdash with the letters vav hei.

This is one of the reasons why Parshas Vaes'chanan is read on the first Shabbos of comfort, directly after Tishah BeAv. All of the Divine influences are drawn down into the world through the Torah. The ascent which follows Tishah BeAv involves the fusion of the positive advantages of both the First Beis HaMikdash and the Second Beis HaMikdash. Therefore [on this Shabbos], we read Parshas Vaes'chanan, a Torah portion that focuses on the fusion of yud hei and vav hei.

Through [making reference] to the fusion of the First Beis HaMikdash and the Second Beis HaMikdash in the reading of the Torah and the Haftorah {where [this fusion] is referred to explicitly, in the repetition of the phrase: "Take comfort, take comfort"} we precipitate and hasten the fulfillment of that prophecy [and the coming of the era when] we will be comforted for both Batei HaMikdash.

For in that era, the Third Beis HaMikdash - which combines both the First and the Second - will be revealed,[88] with the coming of Mashiach. May this take place in the very near future.

(Adapted from Sichos Simchas Beis HaShoevah, 5724; Sichos Shabbos Parshas Vaes'chanan, 5728)

   

Notes:

1. (Back to text) Orach Chayim, ch. 428. See also Shulchan Aruch and Ramah 428:8, Tosafos Megillah 31b, and Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Tefillah 13:19.

2. (Back to text) More particular, the Torah readings from that date onward share a connection to the retribution and comfort [associated with these days].

   See the Shaloh, Cheilek Torah Shebichsav, the beginning of Parshas Vayeishev [which explains that the weekly cycle of Torah readings shares a connection with the annual cycle of festivals and special dates.] See also p. 366a ff., of that text [which makes similar statements] in particular with reference to the parshiyos read in the three weeks [between the Seventeenth of Tammuz and Tishah BeAv].

3. (Back to text) This concept is also alluded to in the wording of the Tur (which was cited above in part): "Divrei Yirmeyahu for Parshas Pinchas." On the surface, it would have been sufficient to state the names of the haftoros and the order in which they are read (as is done by the Shulchan Aruch and Tosafos, Megillah 31b) without mentioning the parshah with which they are associated. [By mentioning also the name of the parshah, the Tur alludes to the thematic connection they share.]

4. (Back to text) There are, however, certain haftoros that share a connection to two parshiyos. {For example, Divrei Yirmeyahu shares a connection both to Parshas Pinchas and to Parshas Mattos.* And Aniyah Soarah shares a connection to both Parshas Re'eh and Parshas Ki Seitzei.}

   ---

   * [It is possible to explain that the haftorah beginning Shimu shares a connection only to Parshas Masei. Although it is read when the parshiyos Mattos and Masei are read together, that follows the principle that the haftorah should reflect the theme of the Torah reading with which we conclude (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, the conclusion of ch. 284 and the conclusion of ch. 428).

   Although the Tur states: "Shimu Dvar A-donai for Roshei HaMattos," [implying that the haftorah shares a connection to that reading, it can be explained that] the Tur's intent is (primarily) to indicate the time when the haftorah is being read. ([For,] as mentioned in the previous note, the Tur only alludes to the [thematic] connection shared by the parshiyos and the haftoros.)

   {The reason why [the Tur associates this haftorah] with Roshei HaMattos - although at times it is recited on the Shabbos when Parshas Masei alone is read (and it can never be the Haftorah when Parshas Mattos alone is read) - and does not mention Parshas Masei at all can be explained as follows: There are only two possible circumstances - and both of these occur only in a leap year - when the parshiyos Mattos and Masei are read on separate Shabbasos (see the calendars printed in the Tur). [Hence, it is a very rare occurrence when Mattos is not associated with the haftorah beginning Shimu.]

   Note, however, that when R. David Avudraham mentions the order of the parshiyos, he lists the haftoros as they would be read when the parshiyos are read separately.}

   This explanation is not appropriate, however, and we are forced to say that the haftorah beginning Shimu shares a connection to Parshas Mattos. [The proof of this is that] it is agreed - even by the opinion (quoted in the Beis Yosef, Orach Chayim, at the conclusion of ch. 284) which maintains that when two parshiyos are read together we should recite the haftorah from the first parshah - that when Parshas Mattos and Parshas Masei are read together, the haftorah beginning Shimu should be recited.

5. (Back to text) Nevertheless, when focusing on the theme of the parshiyos, there are other readings which share a greater connection. For example, the reading Viyad A-donai shares a greater connection to Parshas Pinchas [than Divrei Yirmeyahu] and Vayidaber David shares a greater connection to Parshas Haazinu [than Shuvah Yisrael]. [Therefore when Parshas Pinchas is read before the Seventeenth of Tammuz and when Parshas Haazinu is read after Yom Kippur, these readings are chosen.]

6. (Back to text) Yeshayahu 40:1.

7. (Back to text) Yalkut Shimoni, Yeshayahu, sec. 445.

8. (Back to text) "For all of these comforts [speak of events that will take place] in the era of Mashiach" (Radak to Yeshayahu, loc. cit.).

9. (Back to text) Yoma 21b. Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 57c, explains that this is because it lacked the influence of the upper hei [which is associated with the Sefirah] of Binah.

10. (Back to text) See the explanation of similar concepts in the conclusion of the maamar entitled Nachamu, 5670.

11. (Back to text) Bava Basra 3a.

12. (Back to text) Chaggai 2:9.

13. (Back to text) The Zohar, Vol. I, p. 28a explains that [the term "this latter house"] refers to the Third Beis HaMikdash, [not the Second]. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IX, p. 28, note 35 of the previous essay translated in this series, which fuses together both of these interpretations.

14. (Back to text) [The First Beis HaMikdash was 60 cubits high, while the Second Beis HaMikdash was 100 cubits high.]

15. (Back to text) [The First Beis HaMikdash endured 410 years, while the Second Beis HaMikdash endured 420 years.] These [advantages on the material plane] reflect a greater potential and higher spiritual power.

16. (Back to text) See the Zohar, Vol. III, p. 221a. See Likkutei Sichos, loc. cit., secs. VII and XI.

17. (Back to text) See Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:16 [c] which cites Tehillim 132:14: "This is My resting place for eternity." (See Torah Or, beginning of Parshas Vayigash.)

18. (Back to text) See Shir HaShirim Rabbah, loc. cit., which cites II Shmuel 7:6: "And I sojourned in a tent." See also Torah Or, loc. cit.

19. (Back to text) With regard to the concepts to be explained (and the distinctions between the Sanctuary and the Beis HaMikdash, see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, p. 18, sec. VII ff., [translated in Vol. I, p. 83ff., of this series] and the sources cited there. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VIII, p. 26, sec. VIII.

20. (Back to text) Shmos 25:8.

21. (Back to text) [It also encompassed] the sockets which were inanimate matter.

22. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: As explained in the sources cited above, the revelation in the Sanctuary followed the motif of gilui melimaalah, revelation from above. That motif can be compared to the rays of the sun which illuminate a dark room. When there is an open window, the sun's rays enter and the room is lit. This does not, however, change the nature of the room itself. Hence, if the window is closed, the room becomes dark again.

    To illustrate the concept in personal terms: An arousal from above does not produce an internalized effect within a person's character. He remains who he is. During the time he is exposed to the arousal from above, he will be inspired. That inspiration will, however, fade when the arousal from above ceases.]

23. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: I.e., the holiness of the Beis HaMikdash was internalized within them. As the Rebbe continues to explain, this can be compared to a person who learns an intellectual concept. The concept he learns becomes internalized within his understanding. Hence, even when his attention is diverted to other matters, it remains part of his conceptual resources.]

24. (Back to text) Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, the conclusion of ch. 6.

25. (Back to text) Zohar, Vol. I, p. 150a; see also Shmos Rabbah 15:26.

26. (Back to text) See Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 10a, which explains that the sun represents (Yesod of) Z'eir Anpin, while the moon represents Malchus. See also Tikkunei Zohar (Tikkun 44) which explains that the sun and the moon are comparable to the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shechinah [which are in turn identified with Z'eir Anpin and Malchus].

27. (Back to text) The Sanctuary, by contrast, was the work of Moshe (and the people of his generation), and it is said (Bava Basra 75a): "Moshe's face resembles the face of the sun."*

    ---

    * Significantly, when citing this statement of our Sages, Rashi (Bamidbar 27:20) omits the words "the face of." The rationale is that from the standpoint of peshat, (the simple meaning of the Torah), there is no difference between the sun and the moon themselves and their "faces."

28. (Back to text) See the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShanah 5666, p. 402, and p. 403 compares this level of understanding to [the process of deduction]: "understanding one concept from another concept." The new concept which is deduced is considered as an entirely new development. Note the explanation there.

29. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: This is speaking about a student who is more than a parrot of his teacher. It is not only that he has comprehended the subject matter his teacher conveyed to him, he has grasped the motivating principles which prompt his teacher's thought. Nevertheless, this understanding is prompted by his teacher's instruction. The student did not reach this rung on his own.]

30. (Back to text) Yeshayahu 40:5. Note the explanation of this verse in Shaar HaEmunah by the Mitteler Rebbe, ch. 25.

31. (Back to text) A person's arousal to teshuvah stems from the fact that in the spiritual realms, various different motivating factors are being set into effect to bring about this purpose, as it is written (II Shmuel 14:14): "He conceives designs so that no one will be estranged from Him." [This influence is, however,] hidden. {This is indicated by the verse (Devarim 4:29): "And you shall seek G-d, your L-rd, from there." As explained in Likkutei Torah, Devarim, 32c, [the term "there" implies a place that is not in direct contact with G-dliness]. Similarly, it is written (Devarim 31:17-18): "I will conceal My face from them.... And they shall say: 'Because my G-d is not in my midst, all of these evils have befallen me.' And I will conceal My face."} [Thus although there is influence from above, on an apparent level,] teshuvah appears to come from the person's own initiative.

32. (Back to text) Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Gerushin, the conclusion of ch. 2. [That ruling focuses on the law that a bill of divorce given under compulsion by a Jewish court is acceptable. The Rambam notes that a husband must willfully initiate divorce proceedings. Why then is a bill of divorce which he is compelled to give acceptable? Because every Jew "wants to be part of the Jewish people. He seeks to perform all the mitzvos and eschew all the transgressions. It is only his (evil) inclination that compels him otherwise. Therefore when he is beaten until his (evil) inclination has been weakened, and consents, he is considered to have performed the divorce willfully."]

33. (Back to text) The series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShanah 5666, p. 404. [These concepts are mentioned in conceptual] sequence to the analogy of the teacher and the student cited above, sec. IV. See the detailed explanation of these concepts in Toras Shalom, p. 76, et al.

34. (Back to text) Yeshayahu 30:26.

35. (Back to text) Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 10a.

36. (Back to text) The text of the Nishmas prayer recited during the morning service on Shabbos and festivals.

37. (Back to text) See Vayikra Rabbah 31:8 which states that we do not see from the white of our eyes, but from the black of the eye, i.e., the pupil. This understanding is also reflected in the passage from Or HaTorah cited in the following note.

38. (Back to text) See Or HaTorah, Bereishis, p. 33a. On the surface, this represents a greater new development than the light of the moon attaining equivalence with the light of the sun, because the moon - as it exists at present - also possesses a light of its own. At present, however, it does not shine on its own initiative. In the Future, it will reach a new state and the light of the recipient will shine like the light of the source of influence.

    With regard to the pupil of the eye, its blackness is the opposite of light. (See Peirush HaMillos of the Mitteler Rebbe, ch. 122: "The pupil ... contracts the essence of sight.... The potential for brightness within the eye is from the essential luminance of the white of the eye.*) Nevertheless, in the ultimate Future, even the pupil of our eyes will shine forth light.

    ---

    * The passage from Peirush HaMillos concludes: Through the transformation of the pupil of the eye, the power of sight becomes stronger and more refined. (See also Rashi, Devarim 32:10, which states: "The pupil from which the light emerges.")

    It is possible to explain that the pupil enhances the power of sight in two ways:

    1. On a simple level, through contracting the light of sight, it concentrates it. According to this interpretation, the pupil is merely an external factor, causing the power of sight to become stronger.

    2. From an inner dimension, the darkness of the pupil itself becomes transformed into light. Therefore, its light is more powerful.

    See Toras Chayim, Noach (p. 60b), which explains that there are two interpretations to the phrase (Koheles 2:13): "an advantage of darkness over light." Note also Or HaTorah, Va'eira, p. 163.

39. (Back to text) The blessings recited before Torah study.

40. (Back to text) Avos 1:1.

41. (Back to text) Tanya, ch. 5.

42. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: Since Torah study puts an emphasis on the student's comprehension, one might think that it is comparable to the second motif - refinement of the created beings within their own context. Nevertheless, for the reasons mentioned by the Rebbe, it is more appropriate to consider it within the first category.]

43. (Back to text) Bamidbar 15:39. [We have translated the verse according to the meaning emphasized by the sichah.]

44. (Back to text) See Vayikra Rabbah 35:6; see also Sanhedrin 99b and Zohar, Vol. III, p. 113a, [which imply that man makes - brings into being - the mitzvos, as it were].

45. (Back to text) Beis Yosef to Yoreh De'ah, ch. 248; Sanhedrin, loc. cit. See also the maamar entitled VaYita Eshel, 5699, sec. IV.

46. (Back to text) Bereishis Rabbah 44:1.

47. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: The point is not the chronological sequence, but the difference in the conceptual pattern. The existence of man (- and the material objects with which the mitzvos are performed, as the sichah continues to explain -) are integral to the definition of the mitzvos. For the purpose of the mitzvos is that these activities be performed in the world. The Torah, by contrast, is abstract G-dly truth which exists whether or not man comprehends it. Thus the mitzvos reflect a level of G-dliness which relates to the world, while the Torah reflects a plane of spirituality above the gestalt of our world.]

48. (Back to text) [Although the term] "enclothe" [is occasionally used] with regard to the Torah, it is used only as "a borrowed term" (the maamar entitled VaYomer Moshe, 5704, ch. 20).

49. (Back to text) Mishlei 6:23 states: "A mitzvah is a candle and the Torah is light." Commenting on this verse, our Sages say (Sotah 21a): "Daylight protects forever.... When the dawn rises." Thus they interpret the term "light" as referring to "daylight." Conversely, the Shaloh (in the beginning of his text) interprets it as referring to the light of a bonfire (see Or HaTorah, Mishlei, p. 569; the beginning of Kuntres Etz HaChayim).

50. (Back to text) [One might raise a question based on Sotah, loc. cit., which states: "The verse associated a mitzvah with a candle and the Torah with light.... Just as a candle protects only temporarily, so too, a mitzvah.... And just as daylight protects forever, so too, the Torah."

    This, however, does not represent a contradiction to the statements above. The fact that "a mitzvah protects only temporarily," while "the Torah protects for all time," reflects the advantage of the light of the Torah itself over the light of the mitzvos.

    {The mitzvos are dependent on time (and space). Therefore they protect only temporarily. The Torah, by contrast, is above the framework of time. Therefore, it protects forever. See Or HaTorah, loc. cit., p. 570; Kuntres Etz HaChayim, ch. 2.}

    With regard to the effect within a person (who studies the Torah or fulfills the mitzvos) and similarly, within the material entities (with regard to which the Torah renders judgment and with which the mitzvos are fulfilled), the refinement brought about by the mitzvos has a more internalized effect.

    [This concept is illustrated by the above analogy itself.] With regard to the advantage of the light, the daylight is more elevated than candlelight. With regard to the effect of the light within the material substance of the world, candlelight has a more internalized effect as stated above.

51. (Back to text) Torah Or, p. 87b, et al.

    [Trans. Note: As explained above, the effect of daylight is limited to the time the light shines and it does not bring about an internalized change within the area in which it shines.]

52. (Back to text) See Shaarei Orah, p. 43b; Imrei Binah, Shaar HaTzitzis, ch. 16 (p. 10a ff., p. 10c states: "This is the 'candle of mitzvah' which has a higher source than 'the light of Torah.'") See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VIII, p. 353, note 11; see also notes 54 and 59 to follow.

53. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: Thus it has a deeper and more permanent effect within the person. To refer to the analogies used previously, the difference can be compared to a student whose conceptual development is directed by a teacher and one who reaches his understanding entirely on his own initiative.]

54. (Back to text) This represents a higher level than "the transformation of darkness into light" accomplished by "the candle of mitzvah." The light of the candle (mitzvah) transforms the wick (the material entity with which the mitzvah is fulfilled) into fire and light. Nevertheless, the fact that the wick shines forth light comes as a result of the fire which is attached to it and which transforms it into fire. (It does not come as a result of the wick itself.) With regard to the transformation of darkness into light brought about by teshuvah, the darkness itself - on its own initiative - is transformed into light. {This parallels the concept that "our eyes will shine like the sun and the moon" which will take place in the Era of the Redemption as explained in sec. V.} See also note 59.

55. (Back to text) See Shabbos 28b which states that [tefillin - and all the mitzvos are equated with tefillin (Kiddushin 35a) - may be made] only from substances that are permitted to be eaten.

56. (Back to text) Tanya, ch 37. [In contrast to the three impure kelipos, kelipas nogah contains a certain measure of good.]

57. (Back to text) On the contrary, they must be rejected (Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, p. 6d).

58. (Back to text) And which are on a lower level than the forbidden substances themselves, for sins are against G-d's will (see Tanya, ch. 24).

59. (Back to text) From this, we can conclude that "the transformation of darkness into light" brought about by teshuvah is that the darkness is transformed into light on its own initiative. For when the transformation of the darkness (the material substance) comes about because of the light, the material substance (the darkness) must have some connection to the light.

    {To cite a parallel: with regard to the light of fire: Since the substances to which the fire is attached are transformed [into fire] because of the fire itself (see note 54), the substances which are transformed into fire (the wick or the wood) must be of the type that are fit to - and can easily be - consumed by fire (see Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 26b). Therefore fire cannot catch on stones and the like and transform them into fire.

    Based on the above, it follows that there is a twofold difference between the three modes [of Divine service] - Torah study, mitzvos, and teshuvah: a) the manner in which they affect the world and b) the level of darkness which they affect.

    The light of the Torah drives away darkness, [but does not transform it]. The "candle of mitzvah" transforms the darkness, [not only the external influence darkness produces, but also] the very existence of the darkness itself. Nevertheless, since this transformation is brought about by the light, it involves only the darkness which has a connection to the light (i.e., permitted matters).

    Teshuvah, by contrast, brings about a transformation of darkness which is motivated by the darkness itself. Thus even willful transgressions - darkness which has no connection to light - can be transformed into merits.

60. (Back to text) Yoma 86b; see the detailed explanation in Derech Mitzvosecha, p. 191a.

61. (Back to text) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IX, p. 24, sec. VII [the previous essay translated in this series, which focuses on this concept].

62. (Back to text) Therefore the First Beis HaMikdash was built when "the disk of the moon was full" (as stated above, sec. III). This reflects the moon's perfection in receiving [light] from the sun (see sec. V).

    Note that the fact that the disk of the moon became full in the era of Shlomo came about because he was the fifteenth generation [as the moon becomes full on the fifteenth night] from Avraham who "began to illumine" (Shmos Rabbah 15:26). For the refinement of the lower realms came as a consequence of the light which was drawn down (to Avraham - as Bereishis Rabbah, Parshas Lech Lecha states - the "Master of the Structure revealed Himself to him") from above.

    (Note also Shmos Rabbah, loc. cit., which states: "On the first of Nissan, the shining began." [As explained in other sources,] the month of Nissan is associated with drawing down [G-dly] influence from above.

63. (Back to text) See Likkutei Biurim (by R. Hillel of Paritch, p. 47d, printed in Maamarei Admur HaEmtzaei Kuntreisim, p. 144) which states that [the souls of] "the pious among the gentiles" stem from kelipas nogah [in contrast to the majority of the gentiles whose souls stem from the three impure kelipos - Tanya, ch. 1]. ([As a source, R. Hillel] cites Siddur Im Dach, Shaar Chag HaMatzos.)

    Rashi (Rosh HaShanah 3b) comments on the statement that Koresh "soured" - "he became wicked." This, however, is not a proof that the source of his soul changed.

64. (Back to text) Ezra 1:1. See the commentary of the Tosafos Yom Tov to Ediyos 8:7 (quoted in note 74). Moreover, Koresh also shared in the building expenses. See Ezra 6:4 and Rosh HaShanah 4a.

65. (Back to text) This quantitative greatness also led to a qualitative greatness and a spiritual advantage as stated above, note 15.

66. (Back to text) See Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 7 (p. 82a).

67. (Back to text) See the sources cited in note 16.

68. (Back to text) In particular, this applies because [in the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash], the laws of the Yovel (Jubilee Year) were not observed. (See Erachin 32b, Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Shemittah VeYovel 10:8.) As a consequence, all of the other laws [including the laws of the tithes] that apply only during the time the Yovel is observed [did not apply according to Scriptural Law in the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash] (Rambam, loc. cit.:9).

    On an apparent level, the observance of the mitzvah of Yovel is not dependent on the Beis HaMikdash and the level [of spirituality] associated with it, [but rather on the fact] that "all the inhabitants [of Eretz Yisrael] dwell within it." Since this factor did not apply during the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash, there was no obligation to observe the mitzvah of Yovel.

    Nevertheless, from an inner, spiritual perspective, [there is a connection between the two concepts]. The concept that "all the inhabitants [of Eretz Yisrael] dwell within it" reflects the theme "like a city united together" (Tehillim 122:3) which comes as a result of the influence of the higher Hei of G-d's name being drawn down to the lower Hei. This spiritual dynamic [operated during the era of the First Beis HaMikdash, but] not in the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash. Therefore, the mitzvah of Yovel was not observed at that time (Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 60b).

    A question can, however, be raised with regard to this explanation, for the mitzvah of Yovel was also not observed at the conclusion of the era of the First Beis HaMikdash [from the time of the exile of the tribes of Reuven and Gad] (Erachin 35b).

69. (Back to text) Rosh HaShanah 29b. "This decree was enacted in the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash. As is well known from the Talmud, most of the decrees [enacted as safeguards] ... were established in the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash" (Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 57c).

70. (Back to text) The Talmud Yerushalmi (Rosh HaShanah 4:1) appears to imply that the decree not to sound the shofar (in the country at large) when Rosh HaShanah falls on Shabbos is of Scriptural origin.

71. (Back to text) Likkutei Torah, loc. cit.

72. (Back to text) According to Nigleh, the rationale for the distinction between the Beis HaMikdash and the country at large is based on the principle: "The prohibitions classified as shvus (Rabbinic safeguards) were not applied in the Beis HaMikdash" (Rashi, Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit., entry gezeirah).

    This concept can be correlated with the rationale given by Likkutei Torah, that the pleasure generated by the sounding of the shofar (which transcends the pleasure generated by the Shabbos) rests and enclothes itself only in [the Sefirah of] Binah ("understanding"), and [that Sefirah] shines only in the Beis HaMikdash.

    The reason all the various Rabbinic safeguards and decrees were enacted in the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash was that the sublime Hei associated with the Sefirah of Binah did not shine at that time, as explained in Likkutei Torah, loc. cit. [Nevertheless,] in the Beis HaMikdash itself, even in the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash, it was possible for [the Sefirah of] Binah of Atzilus to be revealed. Hence, in the Beis HaMikdash, there was no need for Rabbinic safeguards, and the prohibitions classified as shvus were not applied. [Outside of the Beis HaMikdash, by contrast, these safeguards were necessary.]

73. (Back to text) The Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, loc. cit.

74. (Back to text) The Rambam, loc. cit. states: "When Ezra ascended and sanctified the land, he did not sanctify it explicitly, but rather [sanctified it] by taking possession of it." {And hence, it is still sanctified at present.} Tosafos Yom Tov, Ediyos 8:7, explains that taking possession of the land refers to "the right to take possession of the land granted by Koresh, King of Persia."

75. (Back to text) Eruvin 54a. [Although the freedom came as a result of the Tablets of the Ten Commandments,] the experience of that freedom was not confined to Torah scholars. On the contrary, it encompassed the entire Jewish people. [We are forced to accept that concept. For if the experience was confined to Torah scholars, there would be nothing unique about that period.] Even in the present era (when the Tablets are destroyed), a person who occupies himself with Torah study is "a free man" (Avos 6:2). See also Or HaTorah, Ki Sissa, p. 2022; the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShanah 5666, p. 87.

76. (Back to text) Or HaTorah, loc. cit.

77. (Back to text) Avos, loc. cit.

78. (Back to text) Pesachim 87b; Jerusalem Talmud, Taanis 4:8.

79. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: The site of the Beis HaMikdash itself, however, remained holy even after the destruction of the First Beis HaMikdash (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, loc. cit.).]

80. (Back to text) See the Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Ki Sissa, sec. 31, quoted by Rashi in his commentary to Shmos 34:3. [See also the Rambam, loc. cit., 4:1, which states that the Second Tablets were entombed in the ark beneath the Beis HaMikdash and thus exist at present.]

81. (Back to text) Also, there are opinions (Pesikta Zuta, Lekach Tov, Shmos 34:1, Devarim 5:12) which state that the version of the Ten Commandments related in Parshas Vaes'chanan was written on the Second Tablets.

82. (Back to text) See, for example, Devarim 3:26 and Rashi's commentary to Devarim 3:29.

83. (Back to text) See Devarim Rabbah 11:9, cited in the commentary Daas Zakeinim of the Baal HaTosafos on the verse.

84. (Back to text) See Or HaTorah on the verse from our parshah (p. 113ff.); Or HaTorah, Bereishis, p. 47b.

85. (Back to text) See Chagigah 13a; see also Likkutei Torah, Vayikra 34a.

86. (Back to text) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, p. 105, note 69.

87. (Back to text) See Reshimos of the Tzemach Tzedek to Eichah - Or HaTorah Nach, Vol. II, p. 1050.

88. (Back to text) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VII, p. 91, note 63.