Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XIX, p. 250ff.

I

In his sichah delivered on Chai Elul, 5705, the Previous Rebbe said: "Among chassidim, there are two versions of a time-honored aphorism:[1]

1. "Chai Elul is the day which infuses vitality into Elul," and;

2. "Chai Elul is the day which infuses vitality into the Divine service of 'I am my Beloved's and my Beloved is mine.'"[2]

Since the Previous Rebbe mentioned both versions of the aphorism, it is understood that they are both appropriate. [Moreover,] each one of the versions contains a new dimension which the other does not.[3] Thus explanation is necessary: The fact that [the first version] states that Chai Elul infuses vitality into Elul seemingly refers to all aspects of Elul, including (an impetus for) all the types of Divine service which [characterize] the month.

These types of Divine service are alluded to, as mentioned several times,[4] by the words of the verses whose first letters spell out the name Elul:

- "[G-d] caused it to happen to his hand, I shall grant...."[5] [This verse refers to] the cities of refuge which in turn serve as an analogy for the study of the Torah (as our Sages stated:[6] "The words of the Torah are a refuge").

, "I am my Beloved's and my Beloved is mine." [This verse] refers to the Divine service of prayer.[7] (For prayer joins the Jews to G-d, [bonding] "I" [to] "my Beloved."[8])

, "[Presents sent from] a person to his friend and gifts to the poor."[9] This verse alludes to deeds of kindness.

And , "[And G-d, your L-rd,] will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants,"[10] which refers to teshuvah.

Accordingly, the question arises: What does the second version of the aphorism - "Chai Elul... infuses vitality into the Divine service of 'I am my Beloved's and my Beloved is mine'" - add? ["I am my Beloved's"] is just one of the types of Divine service [alluded to by the verses associated] with Elul. [Seemingly, all its implications are also included in the first interpretation.]

II

It is possible to explain that the two versions of the new development brought about by Chai Elul reflect the two positive qualities of the day,[11] the birthday of "the two great luminaries,"[12] the Baal Shem Tov, the founder of the general chassidic movement, and the Alter Rebbe, the founder of Chabad Chassidus.

Chabad Chassidus is an expansion of the general Chassidic movement, extending the teachings of Chassidus so that they could be understood by wisdom, understanding, and knowledge,[13] i.e., mortal thought. Nevertheless, [the approach of Chabad] expresses a new development with regard to the Chassidic movement as a whole.[14]

{Indeed, this new development is so great, that the individual who would found and reveal Chabad Chassidus, the Alter Rebbe, had to be a new soul,[15] one [worthy of being called] (by the Baal Shem Tov) "the great light."[16]}

Similar concepts apply with regard to the concept: "I am my Beloved's." Although it is one element of Elul, it brings about a new development with regard to [the month] as a whole, lifting all the elements of Elul's Divine service to a higher level. This parallels the new development which Chassidus Chabad contributes to the general Chassidic movement.

On this basis, we can appreciate the explanation of the two versions [of the aphorism] regarding Chai Elul. The fact that Chai Elul is the birthday of the Baal Shem Tov infuses vitality into Elul, as the Chassidic movement as a whole infuses an all-encompassing vitality into Divine service. This vitality includes and permeates all of the different [elements] of Divine service [associated with the month].

[In addition,] because Chai Elul is the birthday of the Alter Rebbe, the founder of the teachings of Chabad Chassidus, it infuses vitality into the Divine service of "I am my Beloved's," (and through that into all the other types of Divine service). For (the new dimension [brought about by]) Chabad Chassidus is particularly connected with that [path of] Divine service, as will be explained.

III

The fundamental difference between the general Chassidic movement ([founded by] the Baal Shem Tov) and Chassidus Chabad ([founded by] the Alter Rebbe) was expressed by the Previous Rebbe in a short maxim:[17] "The Baal Shem Tov showed how we must serve G-d and the Alter Rebbe showed how we can serve G-d."

On the surface, the simple meaning of the words implies that the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov do not show a person the way to actually carry out Divine service.

This is an astonishing statement. How is it possible to say that the Baal Shem Tov did not, heaven forbid, show a person a path [enabling him] to become a servant of G-d in actual life?

On the contrary, the Baal Shem Tov established a great multitude of students and students of students who served G-d according to the paths of Chassidus before the revelation of Chabad Chassidus. And [these students] established their own students, who [continued] in subsequent generations (for whatever reasons) not to occupy themselves with Chabad Chassidus. Certainly, these individuals (not only knew how they must serve G-d,) but actually served Him according to the paths of Chassidus.

What then is the intent of the statement that it was the Alter Rebbe who showed how we can serve G-d?

IV

The above questions can be resolved through the preface [of another concept]: We find that the process of development of the teachings of Chassidus - first, it was drawn down in a general manner (the approach of the general Chassidic movement) and then it was drawn down into intellect (Chabad) in a particular manner - parallels that of the Torah at large.

G-d gave the Torah - the Written Law and "the halachos revealed to us and our children"[18] from the Oral Law,[19] together with the general principles [of the exposition] of the Torah, the principles of Biblical exegesis. Similarly, with regard to the Oral Law, ([we were granted the general principles] how to interpret and derive laws from verses[20] and how to occupy ourselves with "the depths of the motivating principles of the halachah and the dialectic analysis of their rationales"[21]).

Afterwards, the study of the Torah by the Jewish people (which follows the principles of Torah study given to Moshe at Sinai) yields - through their labor with their minds - new Torah concepts, "the development of halachos without any limit or constraint."

This reflects one of the explanations of our Sages' statement:[22] "Every new concept to be developed by an experienced Torah scholar was given to Moshe at Sinai." This statement appears to be self-contradictory. If "Every... concept... was given to Moshe at Sinai," then there are no "new concept[s]." How can [our Sages] speak of "new concepts to be developed"?[23]

There is, moreover, another difficulty: How is it possible for Moshe to have learned the entire Torah, including all the new concepts to be developed by every experienced scholar until the end of history, in such a small amount of time? (In particular, [the question applies, because the Torah given to Moshe] includes[24] "the new dimensions of Torah that will emerge from Me,"[25] "the teachings of Mashiach, which will be manifoldly abundant[26] in their profusion."[27])

[Based on the] above explanations, a resolution to these questions [can be proposed]: Moshe Rabbeinu received the Written Law and the Oral Law together with all the Torah's general principles of exegesis,[28] [which show] how to derive particular concepts in [all of] the disciplines of Pshat, Remez, Derush, and Sod.[29] The experienced scholar [of the later generations], however, is the one who studies and actually develops the particular elements of the process of dialectic reasoning, and brings out a particular law from these general principles.[30]

Therefore, [a particular law] can be considered a new development. (For, in fact, Moshe did not ever learn this particular law. As our Sages commented:[31] Moshe "did not know" the "mountains upon mountains" of laws that Rabbi Akiva was able to derive.)

Nevertheless, since all these new concepts must be built on the general principles which Moshe received at Sinai, "Everything was given to Moshe at Sinai." For everything was included (in a hidden manner, at least) in the Torah received by Moshe.[32]

Even so, when the experienced scholar labors with his mind to reveal a [new] particular concept in the Oral Law (based on the principles of the Torah), he brings about a new development within the Torah. [Indeed, laboring to do so] is one of the fundamental elements of Torah study. There is an obligation incumbent on "every person within Israel" - not only to study what is already written in existing [Torah] texts - but also "to develop new concepts... in halachah, in aggadah, in the revealed, legal dimension of Torah study, and in its mystic realm."[33] {Furthermore, every Jew has a portion in the Torah which he must reveal. The fulfillment of his soul's [purpose] is dependent on [developing this new concept].}[34]

Similar concepts can be explained with regard to Chassidus Chabad (which involves bringing Chassidus into the realm of the intellect). Although this is only one element of the general Chassidic movement, it represents a new development - indeed, a fundamental new development - within Chassidus.

V

[This explanation, however, raises a question from the other perspective:] Why is the concept developed by the experienced scholar referred to as being "new"? Although Moshe did not actually learn every concept and every law in a particular manner, [the unfolding of such a concept cannot rightly be considered a new development]. A true new development means[35] that not only was the concept not actually revealed before, but that the potential for it did not even exist.[36]

Since this particular law was included (in a hidden manner) within the Torah which Moshe studied - and hence, everything was granted to Moshe at Sinai - how can this insight be considered a new development?[37]

The following can be offered as a possible explanation:[38] When referring to the concept as a "new development," the term is not being used most appropriately with regard to the cheftza[39], the object, i.e., the concept being studied; ([we are not intending to say that in a complete sense,] the concept is new and did not exist previously). Instead, [the use of the term] is intended primarily to apply to the gavra, the person studying.

The [new] concept in the Oral Law which was developed was previously included in a hidden manner in the Torah as it was given at Sinai.[40] [It was so far from being revealed that,] as explained previously, even Moshe our teacher, who knew all the principles of study and [who understood all the means] through which to derive particulars from the general principle, "did not know what they were saying."

Bringing this particular into revelation is a new achievement which belongs entirely to the "experienced scholar." Therefore it is considered as a "new concept developed by the experienced scholar," for he - with his initiative, and through laboring intellectually - brings the concept into revelation. From his perspective, this is truly a new development.

This also represents one of the reasons[41] why the fulfillment of every soul is dependent on developing new intellectual concepts in the Torah. For the true function of the intellect is to enable a person to grasp and comprehend concepts himself.[42] [The intent is] not that another person (in whom he believes) assures him that the concept is true, but that he himself through his power of intellect and understanding grasps that it is so. Therefore the fulfillment of intellect comes in the development of new concepts through which he shows that he has come to this intellectual concept entirely on his own.

The ultimate purpose of Torah study is for a person's intellect to become one with G-d's wisdom in "wondrous unity."42 Therefore the fulfillment of the soul (which is achieved through Torah study) is accomplished through a person's [labor to] develop new Torah concepts.[43]

VI

This reflects the distinction between the Torah as it is given from above, and how it is studied by the Jewish people. [The verse,][44] "I gave you a good portion," and the expressions, "the giving of the Torah," "the Giver of the Torah," place the emphasis on G-d's giving.

It is possible for this giving to be in [a concentrated form, to borrow] our Sages' expression:[45] "[To teach using] a short path." As we see with regard to a teacher and a student on this physical plane, the intellectual concept shines for the teacher with all its length, breadth, and depth. Nevertheless, he gives his student only a concentrated [synopsis], the very point of the idea, without particulars. This point does in fact include all the particulars,[46] but [as they exist hidden within this fundamental point,] they cannot be distinguished as independent entities.

Once [the teacher has] given over the concept to the student, however, the fundamental concern is the understanding, comprehension, and grasp of the Torah concepts by the recipient, the student. And for a human being to grasp an intellectual concept, he must take hold of and comprehend all of the particulars of the concept. Indeed, it is only through grasping every particular independently that he becomes able to comprehend the concentrated point of the concept as he should, in a consummate manner.

For example, comprehending one of the mishnayos (which are recorded in a concentrated form[47]) in depth, and in a consummate manner, is possible only after learning, understanding, and grasping (in detail, for only then can the subject manner be considered "the person's Torah knowledge"[48]) all the lengthy particular laws and analytical discussions brought out by the bereisos[49] and Talmudic passages on that mishnah.

VII

A similar pattern can be explained with regard to the distinction between the general Chassidic movement and Chabad Chassidus: The fundamental emphasis of the general Chassidic movement by the Baal Shem Tov was that it was a revelation from above, i.e., from G-d, and from tzaddikim who "resemble their Creator."[50]

For that reason, one of the fundamental issues stressed by the general Chassidic movement is the concept of emunah, "faith." [They interpret the verse:][51] "A tzaddik lives by his faith," [to mean that through his faith, a tzaddik imparts spiritual vitality to others].

Now emunah is not a quality that is achieved by a person, but rather is endowed from above[52] - this implies also that it is endowed by a father (teacher[53]) to a son (student), for Jews are "believers, the descendants of believers"[54] - and each person is a recipient.

Through drawing Chassidus into the intellectual powers of Chabad ([which penetrates even] mortal wisdom), the Alter Rebbe made it possible (and [hence, made it] our responsibility) that the concepts of Chassidus be understood and (even) grasped by a person through Divine service on his own initiative.[55] When a person labors to understand P'nimiyus HaTorah, the teachings of Chassidus, to the extent that the concepts ring true to him (not only because of his faith, but also) because of his understanding,[56] he has reached a higher rung. The vitality he feels in his Divine service is his own achievement, a new development which he has brought about through his own efforts.

{[On this basis, we can appreciate why, as mentioned at the outset, it was necessary for the Alter Rebbe to be a "new soul."] For the endowment of the potential to bring about new developments[57] and achievements within one's Divine service following [the path of] Chassidus on one's own initiative - could be achieved only by a "new soul."}

VIII

On this basis, we can now appreciate the Previous Rebbe's maxim that: "The Baal Shem Tov showed how we must serve G-d and the Alter Rebbe showed how we can serve G-d." The difference between "how we must" and "how we can" can be explained as follows:

"How we must" underscores what we must do because it is demanded of us from above. "How we can," by contrast, puts the emphasis on man's potential for achievement: what he can accomplish on his own initiative.

Certainly, it is obvious that the general Chassidic movement prompted actual Divine service inspired by the paths of Chassidus. Moreover, [to apply these concepts in a personal sense,] the vitality of Chassidus permeates the totality of an individual's personality[58] and all his expressions of Divine service: his prayer, his study, his observance of the mitzvos, and even the deeds which he performs [for the sake of heaven].[59] They will be elevated to a higher plane and performed with new vitality.

Nevertheless, since this vitality comes from above, i.e., because of emunah, it is of a general nature.[60] It encompasses and permeates all of the particular elements of a person equally. One does not appreciate the unique particular element of any one dimension of Divine service. Instead, they are all elements and particulars within one general category.

This can be seen from the quality of emunah. The vitality which it endows the particular elements of Divine service does not relate to the individual thrust of that path of service. Instead, it results from the fact that as a whole, the person is permeated by emunah and lives with his emunah.[61] Therefore, as a natural consequence, all the elements of his life are performed with vitality and satisfaction.

The Alter Rebbe, by contrast, demonstrated "how we can serve G-d," i.e., how a person has the potential to create vitality in his Divine service on his own initiative, through laboring intellectually to understand P'nimiyus HaTorah. As a result, every particular dimension of Divine service brings out new energy and is a new development. This is a result of the new depth which he perceives in the particular dimension of this element of Divine service.58

IX

Based on the above, we can appreciate [the contribution of] each of the versions of the aphorism regarding the vitality which Chai Elul infuses into the Divine service of Elul.

The general Chassidic movement infuses an all-encompassing vitality into Elul, affecting all the types of Divine service (as explained in secs. I and II). From this perspective, the particular dimensions of one's Divine service are not perceived as separate elements.

To state the concept in simple words: When a person makes a reckoning of his Divine service in the month of Elul, he thinks primarily of his Divine service as a whole. He also considers the different particular elements of his Divine service - were he not to do so, he would not be making a proper reckoning. Nevertheless, what concerns him is primarily the common factor and the bottom line concerning his situation - is he connected to G-d as he should or is he not?

The Alter Rebbe made possible the approach of Divine service (in the paths of Chassidus) through a person's own initiative. This [approach] infuses vitality into the Divine service of "I am my Beloved's and my Beloved is mine." [As explained,][62] the sequence of the verse (first "I am my Beloved's" and then "my Beloved is mine") indicates that the Divine service begins with an arousal from below, [man taking the initiative]. G-d's drawing close to him ("my Beloved is mine") is intensified because it is prompted by his own service. His labor in drawing himself close to G-d (on man's own initiative), ("I am my Beloved's") [calls forth a higher dimension of "my Beloved is mine"].

This infuses a new dimension of vitality into all the types of Divine service of the month of Elul. They all become performed in a manner of "I am my Beloved's," Divine service on one's own initiative.

(Adapted from Sichos Shabbos Parshas Ki Savo, Chai Elul, 5730)

   

Notes:

1. (Back to text) Likkutei Dibburim, Vol. III, p. 946; Sefer HaSichos 5605, p. 122.

2. (Back to text) Shir HaShirim 6:3. The first letters of the words of this verse spell out the name Elul (Avudraham, Seder Tefilos Rosh HaShanah; Pri Etz Chayim, Shaar Rosh HaShanah, ch. 1; Shaar HaPesukim to this verse, et al.).

   [Trans. Note: As frequently explained, Shir HaShirim is a developed analogy, reflecting the love relationship between G-d (the man) and the Jewish people (the woman). In this context, the verse "I am my Beloved's..." indicates how the woman, the Jewish people, initiate an intensification of that love relationship.]

3. (Back to text) See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXIX, p. 161ff., where this concept is also discussed.

4. (Back to text) The introduction to Kuntres 94 (Sefer HaMaamarim 5711); Likkut Elul (Kehot, 5714, 5735, 5740); Likkutei Sichos, Vol. II, p. 396, Vol. IX, p. 299, Vol. XIX, p. 207 et al. See also Elef LiMateh, sec. 581.

5. (Back to text) Shmos 21:13. See Shaar HaPesukim and Likkutei Torah of the AriZal on that verse; Pri Etz Chayim, loc. cit.

6. (Back to text) Makkos 10a.

7. (Back to text) Elef LiMateh, loc. cit. See also a different interpretation in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IX, loc. cit. (note 23).

8. (Back to text) Prayer is also referred to as "the service of love" (relating to "my Beloved"); see Kuntres HaAvodah, chs. 1, 3.

9. (Back to text) Esther 9:22; Arugat HaBosem in the name of the Sefer Amarcol.

10. (Back to text) Devarim 30:6; see the commentary of the Baal HaTurim and see also the Avudraham cited above.

11. (Back to text) On this basis, we can develop a connection between [the Previous Rebbe's statements quoted at the outset] and the continuation of that Chai Elul sichah which speaks about the date as the birthday of the Baal Shem Tov and the Alter Rebbe.

12. (Back to text) The wording of the Previous Rebbe quoted in the name of his father, [the Rebbe Rashab,] in Sefer HaSichos 5703, pp. 142, 146, 188, et al.

13. (Back to text) [The first letters of the Hebrew terms for these three thought processes: Chochmah, Binah, and Daas form the term Chabad.]

14. (Back to text) See the maamar entitled Padah BiSholom, 5685, (in the name of his father, the Rebbe Rashab, Yud-Tes Kislev, 5679*) which explains that by revealing Chassidus within the realm of mortal intellect, the Alter Rebbe revealed the essence of P'nimiyus HaTorah. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XVI, p. 38ff. See also Sefer HaSichos, Toras Sholom, p. 55, which states: "The Alter Rebbe is a tractate unto himself."

    ---

    * Printed in Sefer HaMaamarim 5679, p. 673.

15. (Back to text) The sichah of Chai Elul cited above (Likkutei Dibburim, loc. cit., p. 478a ff.; Sefer HaSichos 5705, p. 127 ff. See Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, 50a, for an explanation of the term "new soul." [There it explains that new souls are souls that never descended to the world before, and indeed, were not even included in the soul of Adam, the first man.]

16. (Back to text) Note the two interpretations of the phrase (Genesis 1:16): "the two great luminaries":

    1. that at the beginning of creation the light of the moon was as great as the light of the sun;

    2. at that time, the moon was also a luminary, like the sun, and not merely a recipient of the sun's light; [it was not, however, as great a luminary as the sun]. {See the details in Sefer HaArachim Chabad, erech or halavanah, secs. 1, 7. (See also ibid., loc. cit., sec. VIII, which speaks about the light of the moon in the ultimate Future.)}

17. (Back to text) HaTomim, Vol. II, p. 58 [76b]; Sefer HaMaamarim 5708, p. 292.

18. (Back to text) This phrase is borrowed from the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:5.

19. (Back to text) See the lengthy expositions by the Rambam at the beginning of his Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, and by the Shaloh, tractate Shavuos (p. 192b), based on our Sages' statement (Toras Kohanim, cited by Rashi at the beginning of Parshas Behar) that both the general principles, the particulars, and the details of all the mitzvos were given at Sinai.

20. (Back to text) See the Zohar, Vol. III (p. 221a) which states that "There is no word [in the Oral Law] that cannot be found in the Torah. See Taanis 9a.

21. (Back to text) Hilchos Talmud Torah, loc. cit.

22. (Back to text) [The exact wording quoted is not found in any Talmudic or Midrashic source. Similar and related statements are found in] Megillah 19b; the Jerusalem Talmud, Peah 2:4; Shmos Rabbah 47:1; Vayikra Rabbah 22:1; Koheles Rabbah, 1:9(2); 5:8(2), and other sources. See also the following note.

23. (Back to text) The Talmud Yerushalmi, and the Midrashim cited in the previous note do not use the term lichadeish, "to develop new concepts," but rather lihoros, "to issue a ruling," or lomar, "to say." {The source from Megillah mentions "new concepts to be developed in the future," but [interprets that as referring to] the reading of the Megillah, and not to the laws brought out [by scholars through their] dialectic analysis and the like.}

    The quote as cited above is, however, found in many sources, among them: the Responsa of Rav David Cohen, Beis 5, Cheder 3; the Responsa of the Radbaz, Vol. III, Responsum 1020 (594); Toras HaOlah, Vol. III, ch. 55; the Introduction of the Shach to his commentary on the Torah (3:3); the writings of the AriZal cited in note 28; Or Torah, by the Maggid of Mezeritch, the beginning of Parshas Toldos (p. 11c); Tanya, Kuntres Acharon, the passage beginning Lehavin P'ratei Hahalachos, and others.

    It is also worthy to note that the Jerusalem Talmud, Vayikra Rabbah, and the first source from Koheles Rabbah quote as a prooftext the phrase (Koheles 1:10): "Look, this is new." And in the Margolios edition of Vayikra Rabbah, the version "to develop new concepts" is quoted. This is also true of the Mateh Moshe, Shaar 2. Moreover, the Vilna Gaon also maintains that this is the proper version of the Talmud Yerushalmi.

24. (Back to text) For, to cite the renowned maxim (the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShanah 5666, pp. 23, 546, et al.): "The giving of the Torah will not be repeated again."

25. (Back to text) Vayikra Rabbah 13:3.

26. (Back to text) [In this context,] it is worthy to note the well-known concept ([see] the beginning and the conclusion of the second maamar entitled Vayidaber, 5699 and other sources which explain) that Mashiach will be able to teach the entire Jewish nation although there will be myriads upon myriads present, because he will teach through the medium of sight.

    To cite a parallel, it is related that once, in two or three hours, the AriZal heard ideas which he said he would not be able to explain by speaking day and night for eighty years straight (Pri Etz Chayim, Shaar Krias Shema she'al HaMitah). [This is possible] because his comprehension was on the level of sight (Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 17b, et al.).

    From the above, it is obvious that one cannot resolve the [second] question asked above by stating that Moshe received the Torah through the medium of sight. [This could have explained how in forty days, he comprehended concepts that took thousands of years to explain. Nevertheless,] since Mashiach's teachings were also given at Sinai - and Mashiach will teach through the medium of sight for a duration of many years, it is impossible for Moshe to have learned all of those [concepts] (even through the medium of sight) in [only] forty days.

27. (Back to text) The question also applies - and indeed, with greater strength - based on our Sages' statements in Menachos 29b, cited in the text which follows.

28. (Back to text) See Shmos Rabbah 41:6 which states: "Did Moshe learn the entire Torah?... [G-d] taught him general principles." See also the Shaloh in his introduction to Beis Chochmah (pp. 25,a-b) and in his tractate Shavuos, loc. cit. (cited in Kuntres Etz HaChayim, ch. 31) and Sefer HaMaamarim 5688, p. 128.

    See also (a slightly different interpretation) offered in the AriZal's Shaar Maamarei Chazal (interpreting the statements of the Midrash Rabbah, Parshas Chukas). And note a different interpretation in Shaar Ruach HaKodesh (Tel Aviv, 5723, p. 108d) and Shaar HaGilgulim, Hakdamah 17. See also the sources mentioned in note 31.

29. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: These four approaches to Torah study can be explained as follows: Pshat refers to the simple meaning of a passage, Remez to the allusions it contains, Derush, to the non-literal extrapolations that can be made on it, and Sod, to its mystical connotations.]

30. (Back to text) With regard to the customs observed by the Jewish people and the ordinances enacted [by our Rabbis which, seemingly, were not given at Sinai,] see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XIX, p. 386ff., and in particular, note 54, of that sichah.

31. (Back to text) Menachos 29b. See the interpretation of that passage in Shaar Maamarei Razal, loc. cit., and in the Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharal to Menachos, loc. cit., and the Etz Yosef to the passage as it appears in Ein Yaakov, Menachos, loc. cit.

32. (Back to text) The above also enables us to understand the statement (Yoma 66b; Sukkah 27b) that Rabbi Eliezer the Great "never said anything which he did not hear from his teacher." (See also Sefer HaSichos, Toras Sholom, p. 55, [which quotes the Rebbe Rashab as saying that] "Whatever I say is his [the Alter Rebbe's].")

    On the surface, this is difficult to understand. Throughout [his lifetime of] study, Rabbi Eliezer certainly did more than review the teachings which he heard from his teacher. Surely, he developed new ideas (especially since, as will be stated, this is an obligation [incumbent upon everyone]). The resolution is, however, that all the new concepts developed by Rabbi Eliezer stemmed from the general principles and the path of study that were unique to his teacher.

33. (Back to text) Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 26, (p. 145a). See also Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchos Talmud Torah 2:2 which mentions that a person should develop new Torah concepts. And the Zohar, Vol. I, p. 12b, mentions that a person must "develop new [Torah concepts] every day." (See also Torah Or, Parshas Mikeitz, p. 38c.)

34. (Back to text) Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, loc. cit. (Note also Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:4.)

    With regard to the portion every individual possesses within the Torah, see Shaar HaHakdamos and Shaar Ruach HaKodesh, loc. cit.; Likkutei HaRav Chayim Vital, at the conclusion of Shaar Maamarei Razal.

35. (Back to text) This is evident from our Sages' interpretation of the verse (Koheles 1:9): "There is nothing new under the sun," as explained in ch. 8 of the Rambam's Shemoneh Perakim and in the commentary of [the Rambam and others] to Avos 5:6. [In these sources, the Rambam explains that miracles do not represent a change in G-d's will and a new development. At the very beginning of creation, G-d desired - and thus determined - that these miracles take place. Hence, when the miracles actually transpired, they are not considered as new developments.]

    On the surface, explanation of this [thesis] is required, for [it appears to be challenged by] our Sages' statements in Sanhedrin 110a [which quote Moshe's request of G-d to make a new creation to judge Korach. Implied is that Moshe was asking G-d to bring about something new at that moment] There are two possible resolutions:

    1. [Moshe's request mentions the word] "creation," [implying that this is different from other miracles];

    2. The explanation offered by the Talmud represents a more powerful resolution of the issue.

    In this context, see Rashi's interpretation of the verse in Koheles which states: "By contrast, a person who diligently contemplates the Torah continually discovers new rationales within it," [i.e., that the Torah is not "under the sun," and within it, there is the possibility to develop new concepts].

36. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: I.e., it is not merely that effort is necessary to bring it out from a hidden to a revealed state.]

37. (Back to text) [With the Talmud,] there are concepts that are not derived from the Written Law, e.g., customs (which also are not included in the Oral Law [in an absolute sense]) (see note 30 above). And "there are some actually new concepts which were brought out by the Oral Law which were merely appended (as asmachteos) to verses" (the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, p. 383; see also similar statements in Toras Chayim, Parshas Chayei Sarah, p. 134c; see also the sources cited in the following note).

    Nevertheless, the expression "every concept to be developed by an experienced scholar" implies that [even when] the law is developed through [the use of] the principles of Torah exegesis and the like {which are revelations from a state of hiddenness (within the general principle)} it can be called a new development. ([Note the] explanations in the sources from the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, cited in the following note) and also those cited in note 28 above.

38. (Back to text) See the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, pp. 383, 393, 404 (with regard to [the derivation of concepts from] the Written Law within the Oral Law).

39. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: The terms cheftza and gavra are part of the lexicon employed in advanced Talmudic studies, referring, as implied in the sichah, to the object - i.e., the object involved in the performance of a mitzvah or a legal action - and to the person - i.e., the individual performing that mitzvah or legal action.]

40. (Back to text) See the selection from Sefer HaMaamarim 5688 (cited in note 28) which states that "At the giving of the Torah, the Torah was drawn down and revealed as it exists as a general principle in its source in the primeval wisdom." And previously, that maamar speaks of [the Torah as it exists] "in the primeval thought of Adam Kadmon." These are, however, higher levels than the general principle and the particulars mentioned in the text above.

41. (Back to text) In addition to the rationale mentioned in Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 26 (that through these efforts, a person elevates sparks of G-dliness).

42. (Back to text) See Tanya, ch. 5.

43. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: For in so doing, he shows that his own intellect has come to appreciate a Torah idea on his own, uniting with G-d's wisdom which he himself discovered.]

44. (Back to text) Mishlei 4:2, as explained by Avos 6:2.

45. (Back to text) Pesachim 3b.

46. (Back to text) See Biurei Zohar of the Mitteler Rebbe, Parshas Acharei, p. 76d; the maamar entitled VeYadaata (Moscow , 5657; Sefer HaMaamarim 5657, p. 49), et al.

47. (Back to text) As the Rambam writes in his Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah, the mishnayos are "short teachings which include many concepts."

48. (Back to text) See Avodah Zarah 19a [which speaks of studying Torah slowly and methodically].

49. (Back to text) See Taanis 21a [which implies that all the concepts taught in the bereisos have their source in the mishnayos].

50. (Back to text) Rus Rabbah 4:3, et al.

51. (Back to text) Chabakuk 2:4; see Likkutei Dibburim, Vol. I, p. 141b, et al.

52. (Back to text) See Tanya, ch. 33, [which explains that faith is a spiritual heritage with which we are endowed from above].

53. (Back to text) [See II Melachim 2:12 and Rashi, Bamidbar 3:1, which develop an equivalence between a teacher and a father.]

54. (Back to text) Shabbos 97a.

55. (Back to text) See Likkutei Dibburim, loc. cit.

56. (Back to text) In this vein, one may cite the well-known expression from the Tikkunei Zohar (the conclusion of Tikkun VI) which speaks of the Jewish people "nurturing themselves" from the Zohar's mystic teachings. In his Introduction to the Zohar, the Mikdash Melech defines that term as referring to "the explanation of the true intent of his teachings." See also the interpretation of the Kisai Melech to the Tikkunei Zohar who interprets it as meaning "the explanation of his deep teachings... so that they will be understood... [in contrast, to] one who merely reads superficially."

57. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: As mentioned above, the "newness" of a new Torah concept is primarily in the eyes of the beholder, for from G-d's perspective, the concept existed beforehand. In this instance as well, the new development the Alter Rebbe brought was the possibility that Chassidus be internalized and perceived by an individual within the context of his own understanding.]

58. (Back to text) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XIX, p. 245ff.

59. (Back to text) [The reference is to Avos 2:12: "All of your deeds shall be for the sake of heaven." This refers not to a person's observance of the mitzvos, but to his ordinary mundane activities.]

60. (Back to text) See Likkutei Sichos, loc. cit., pp. 247-248.

61. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: To illustrate by example: When a person is prompted by emunah to increase his study of the Torah, he is not being motivated by a desire to know the Torah. Instead, because his emunah prompts him to seek a connection with G-d, he realizes that connection through Torah study.]

62. (Back to text) See Sefer HaSichos 5703, p. 177.