1. Today, Shabbos, is the second of Sivan, when Moshe began to occupy himself with the Jewish people concerning receiving the Torah. In the words of the Alter Rebbe in Shulchan Aruch, based on the Talmud (Shabbos 86b): “Immediately after Rosh Chodesh Moshe began to occupy himself with them concerning receiving the Torah, for Monday was Rosh Chodesh, and on Tuesday (Sivan 2) he said to them, “You shall be for Me a kingdom of priests.”

Although the Jews were told on the second of Sivan that they would be “a kingdom of priests”, tit-is transformation actually happened later, at Mattan Torah on the sixth, as we see from the future tense of the words, “You shall be for Me a kingdom of priests.” But since G-d, through Moshe, had-told it to the Jews on the second of Sivan, it follows that this day marked the beginning of their involvement in receiving the Torah.

We will understand the lofty distinction of a “kingdom of priests” by first exploring the spiritual level of the Jews before the second of Sivan. Preparations to receiving the Torah began immediately with the exodus from Egypt on Pesach, as written, “When you take out the people from Egypt you shall serve G-d on this mountain” — i.e., the goal of the exodus was the receiving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. In other words, the period between Pesach and Shavuos had one theme: G-d’s choice of the Jews as His people, which began at the exodus from Egypt and concluded with the receiving of the Torah.

The connection between Shavuos and Pesach is emphasized by the Midrash (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:2) which states that Shavuos should really have followed immediately after Pesach as Shemini Atzeres follows Sukkos. The fifty day interval between Shavuos and Pesach is thus not an interruption between the two festivals, but the reverse: These days serve as a preparation to Shavuos, and are united by one mitzvah — the counting of the Omer, which is the preparation to Mattan Torah.

As everything in Torah, the above is also alluded to in nigleh, in the revealed aspect of Torah — in halachah. The Talmud (Yevomos 46a) says that we derive the laws of conversion from Mattan Torah. We thus learn that conversion needs three things: circumcision, immersion in a mikveh, and acceptance of the mitzvos: Acceptance of the mitzvos — when the Jews said “We shall do and we shall hear”; Immersion — “Moshe took the blood and sprinkled it on the people,” and sprinkling must be accompanied by immersion; Circumcision — at the time of the exodus, Jews had to circumcise themselves not just to be able to eat the Pesach sacrifice, but also as part of the conversion process.

We find, then, that the conversion of the Jewish people took place in the period from Pesach to Shavuos, thus emphasizing the connection between the two festivals: The beginning was circumcision on Pesach and it ended on Shavuos with immersion and acceptance of the mitzvos.

Furthermore, something similar to the Jews becoming a “kingdom of priests” on Shavuos was present on Pesach itself. The exodus is associated with the fact that G-d considers Jewry as “My son, My firstborn, Israel.” This fact is expressed in the plague of the firstborn, when G-d struck the Egyptian firstborn and spared the Jewish firstborn. As a result, G-d commanded, “Consecrate to Me every firstborn, everyone that first opens the womb, among the children of Israel ... it belongs to Me” — for “I acquired them for Myself through the fact that I struck the Egyptian firstborn.”

The firstborn are connected to the priesthood, for at first, the service of the Sanctuary was performed by the firstborn, and only afterwards (because of certain reasons) were they replaced by the tribe of Levi, and more particularly, by the priests. Thus the exodus from Egypt on Pesach is connected to the idea of the “kingdom of priests” that came into being at Mattan Torah on Shavuos.

The above concerning the connection between Pesach and Shavuos explains why the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch included the laws of Shavuos in the laws of Pesach (the last chapter of the Laws of Pesach deals entirely with the laws of Shavuos). The Alter Rebbe wrote his Shulchan Aruch with the utmost meticulously. It is thus logical to suppose that the Alter Rebbe included the laws of Shavuos in the laws of Pesach not because the laws of Shavuos are only few in number (and therefore do not need a separate section), but because there is an intrinsic connection between them: Shavuos is the conclusion and completion of Pesach (as elaborated on above). That is, the “Laws of Pesach” encompass all laws pertaining to one period — beginning with Pesach and ending with Shavuos, including the laws of “Isru Chag” (the days following Shavuos). Thus we find that the Alter Rebbe writes at the end of “Laws of Pesach”: “It is customary... not to fast nor to say tachnun from Rosh Chodesh (Sivan) until and including the eighth (of Sivan).” Moreover, in his Siddur, the Alter Rebbe adds that this period extends until and including the twelfth of Sivan.

More particularly, the Alter Rebbe begins the “Laws of Pesach” with a discussion of Shabbos Hagodol; and, as above, concludes with the laws of Shavuos. The connection between them is that on Shabbos Hagodol the miracle of “He struck Egypt through its firstborn” took place — and, as explained previously, the firstborn of Israel were sanctified for service in the Sanctuary as a result of the plague against the firstborn of Egypt — which is the same idea as the “kingdom of priests” which took effect on Shavuos.

The above connection between Pesach (including the miracle of “He struck Egypt through its firstborn”) and Shavuos (“kingdom of priests”) is emphasized by the fact that both the events took place on Shabbos. Our Sages say (Shabbos 86b) that “Everyone agrees that the Torah was given to Israel on Shabbos”; the miracle of “He struck Egypt through its firstborn” took place on the tenth of Nissan which that year was Shabbos, and therefore “zUs miracle was-commemorated for all generations on Shabbos, and it was called Shabbos Hagodol.”

Shabbos Hagodol (beginning of Pesach) and Shavuos (end of Pesach), then, share two common aspects:

1) Both are associated with the idea of a “kingdom of priests”;

2) both events occurred on Shabbos.

This is the special distinction of this year: The second of Sivan, when Moshe told the Jews that “You shall be for Me a kingdom of priests,” is this year Shabbos — thus emphasizing the connection between the beginning of the concept of Pesach and its conclusion on Shavuos.

Now that we have explored the status of the Jews before Shavuos, we can proceed to understand the distinction Jews acquired by becoming a “kingdom of priests” on Shavuos.

At first glance, there does not seem to be any advantage to becoming a “kingdom of priests” on Shavuos over the distincion that the Jews already had acquired on Pesach. The Jewish people, the children of Avraham, Yitzchok and Ya’akov, are divided into three general categories: Priests, Levites and Israelites. There is an additional category, converts, who are also the children of Avraham and Sarah, for “Avraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women” — thus converts are called the children of Avraham and Sarah. Further, Rambam writes that converts are on a loftier level than the children of Avraham, Yitzchok and Ya’akov — for they belong to G-d.

Now, at the exodus from Egypt, Jews were not only the children of Avraham, Yitzchok and Ya’akov, but they also possessed the distinction of converts — for, as noted above, their circumcision oa-- Pesach was the beginning of-their conversion. Indeed, they even possessed the distinction of priesthood — the firstborn. It therefore seems that receiving the Torah gave the Jews no extra distinction over and above what they already possessed!

The answer is that G-d told them, through Moshe Rabbeinu, that “You shall be for Me a kinG-dom of priests.” The Baal Haturim, citing the Midrash, explains that “a kingdom of priests” means “High Priests”: At Mattan Torah every Jew was elevated to the level of a High Priest. At the exodus from Egypt, in contrast, the Jews were only on the level of ordinary priests. The difference between an ordinary priest and a High Priest is a large one, for the level of sanctity of the latter far surpasses that of the former. Priests in general are not allowed to become ritually unclean by coming into contact with the dead. An ordinary priest, however, is allowed to become unclean by coming into contact with close relatives who have died — father, mother, unmarried sister, etc. A High Priest, in contrast, is of such a lofty level of sanctity that he may not come into contact with any dead — even close relatives.

What does this teach us concerning our service to G-d? A Jew may claim that since he is of a lofty innate stature, a son of Avraham, Yitzchok and Ya’akov, he need not strive to rise ever higher in his service to G-d, to “go from strength to strength.” The second of Sivan teaches otherwise: Despite the fact that Jews were on the highest of levels, sons of Avraham, Yitzchok and Ya’akov, and possessed the distinction of converts and priests, Moshe nevertheless told them in G-d’s Name, “You shall be for Me a kingdom of priests” — I meaning they must rise to yet a higher level, “High Priests.”

We learn from this that a Jew must constantly rise higher in sanctity, reaching the ultimate level of a High Priest.

There is one exception to the above rule that a High Priest may not come into contact with the dead — a “mes mitzvah,” when there is no one else to bury the dead person. In such a case, a High Priest, despite his high level of sanctity, is permitted and indeed, is obligated, to become unclean to bury the dead.

This applies even when the High Priest is on the loftiest level of sanctity that he can achieve. There are different levels of sanctity even for a High Priest: The level of the whole year is lower than the level in the seven days preceding Yom Kippur; that of Yom Kippur itself is higher still; and his entrance to the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur is the loftiest of all. Yet, the High Priest must leave the service in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur to bury a “mes mitzvah” I This shows that burying a limes mitzvah” is more important than service in the Holy of Holies.

This teaches the following lesson. There are some Jews who are spiritually on the level of a limes mitzvah” — dead to Judaism. A Jew must know that although he may be on the highest level of sanctity, the level of a High Priest who does not become unclean even for his close relatives — he has the responsibility to lower himself from his level to occupy himself with a Jew who is on the level of a “mes mitzvah.” And, as above, this is because such service is more important than service in the Holy of Holies. Therefore, it follows that through such service, one attains a distinction loftier than possessed by the High Priest.

Such is the- mission given to Jews by — the previous Rebbe, the leader of our generation: Every Jew must engage in the dissemination of Torah, Judaism and Chassidus wherever possible. He must leave his private domain of sanctity to help Jews who are on the level of a “mes mitzvah” — to make them live Jews, Jews who observe Torah and mitzvos.

May it be G-d’s will that today, the second of Sivan, when G-d told the Jews, “You shall be for Me a kingdom of priests,” the level of “High Priest” be revealed in every Jew. This is service associated with the level of “yechidah” (fifth and highest level) of the soul, where no uncleanliness is possible.

Through such service we merit the revelation of the level of “yechidah” of the Jewish people in general — our righteous Mashiach, may he come speedily and redeem us from exile and take us upright to our land.

2. In addition to the above, there is also a lesson to be derived from the parshah read this week — parshas Nasso. Most times, even when the second of Sivan falls on Shabbos, parshas Bamidbar is read. This year, we read parshas Nasso. And consonant to the Alter Rebbe’s dictum that one must “live with the times,” meaning live according to the directives of the weekly parshah, it behooves us to learn a lesson from the fact that this year we read parshas Nasso before Shavuos — in addition to the fact that parshas Bamidbar is always read before Shavuos (although this year it is read not on the Shabbos immediately preceding Shavuos as most years, but on the Shabbos before that).

Let us first explore the reason why the reading of parshas Bamidbar is a preparation to Mattan Torah (and therefore is always read before Shavuos).

Tosfos (Megillah 31b) says the reason is “in order that the curses in parshas Bechukosai should not be close to Shavuos.” In other words, we read parshas Bamidbar (which follows Bechukosai) before Shavuos as a buffer and protection from the curses in parshas Bechukosai. Indeed, parshas Bamidbar acts not just as a buffer, but “transforms darkness into light” — it reveals the inner meaning in the curses, showing how really they are the loftiest blessings. In the words of the Alter Rebbe in Likkutei Torah (parshas Bechukosai, p. 48a): “Although seemingly the words of the these reproofs are curses, in truth they are only blessings.” Similarly, the curses in parshas Ki Sovo read before Rosh Hashanah are really blessings.

Because “seemingly the words of the reproofs are curses,” it is necessary to read parshas Bamidbar as a buffer between them and Shavuos, thereby transforming the curses into blessings (through revealing their inner meaning). For example, one of the verses in the reproofs in parshas Ki Sovo is “The stranger (“ger”) which is in your midst will rise over you exceedingly high.” Chassidus explains that “the stranger which is in your midst” refers to a person’s G-dly soul, which, since it enters the body after the animal soul, is a “stranger” to the person. The animal soul enters at birth, whereas the G-dly soul enters (wholly) at Bar/Bas Mitzvah. The verse, “The stranger which is in your midst will rise over you exceedingly high,” means, therefore, that G-d grants the G-dly soul the power of dominion over the animal soul.

How does this affect service to G-d? We explained above that the G-dly soul enters the body alter the animal-soul. In the-words of the Alter Rebbe: “The final and principal entrance of the holy soul into a man is at 13 years and one day for a male, and 12 years for a female; therefore they are then obligated in mitzvos from the Torah.”

The Alter Rebbe explains further that “the beginning of the soul’s entrance is with the child’s education in the Torah and mitzvos which the Sages obligated one to educate [a child].” Even earlier, the soul first enters the body with the mitzvah of circumcision. Further still, a soul even before it descends into a body is taught the whole Torah and is administered an oath to be righteous.

Nevertheless, all these things are only the beginning of the soul’s entrance”; the “final and principal entrance” is when the person turns 13 years old. This means that the animal soul, which enters at birth, has been basically alone in the body and has had dominion over it for 13 years. How, then, is the G-dly soul able to defeat the animal soul in their battle for rulership over the body? Similarly, how is a person able to perform Torah and mitzvos before Bar Mitzvah, when during this period the animal soul has been in full strength and the G-dly soul has not yet fully entered?

There are two aspects to the G-dly soul: Its essence, which is “a part of G-d Above”; and the form it assumes — e.g. “the good inclination.” In regard to the latter, the fact that the soul assumes a certain form means that it has a fixed place in the body — in the right ventricle of the heart — and it also has other limitations. In such a case, the fact that the animal soul preceded the G-dly soul can give it priority.

In regard to the soul’s essence, however, which is “a part of G-d Above,” the fact that the animal soul entered the body earlier is immaterial. Claims of priority are relevant only in an argument between two roughly equal sides — the good and evil inclinations. Concerning G-d (of which the G-dly soul is part), however, who created both the good and evil inclinations, such claims of priority have no value.

This is what our Sages meant when, concerning a person’s battle with the evil inclination, they said, “If not for the fact that G-d helps him, he could not overcome it.” Since the animal soul preceded the G-dly soul and has priority, a person needs special strength — “G-d helps him” — to help the person win the battle. That help is the “light of G-d” which shines on the G-dly soul; and since G-d created both the good and evil inclinations, claims of priority have no place.

Similarly, children of pre Bar/Bas Mitzvah age can perform mitzvos for there are no limits concerning the essence of the G-dly soul.

The above lends understanding to the blessing, “The stranger that is in your midst shall rise over you exceedingly high.” Although the G-dly soul, from the perspective of the form it assumes in the body, is a “stranger,” it can nevertheless “rise over you exceedingly high” because of its essence.

Thus far every year, when the reading of parshas Bamidbar before Shavuos and after parshas Bechukosai serves to-reveal the inner meaning of the reproofs in parshas Bechukosai. This year there is an additional preparation to Mattan Torah — the reading of parshas Nasso. We can learn a Lesson from parshas Nasso in general, and from today’s portion in particular.

The parshah begins with the words, “Nasso es Rosh” — “Lift up the head,” referring to the tribe of Levi. This means that besides the fact that the Levites are “given to Me from the midst of the children of Israel,” they have the added distinction of being raised up. That we read parshas Nasso before Shavuos teaches that the concept effected on Shavuos — “You shall be for Me a kingdom of priests” — must be in a manner of raising up — and in this itself, the raising up of the head, the most important part of a person.

3. The daily portion of parshas Nasso read today talks of the sum total of the sacrifices brought by the princes for the dedication of the altar — “This is the dedication of the altar after he anointed it.” Both the first and last days of the dedication emphasize the idea of unity: On the first day it states, “This is the dedication-offering for the altar on the day when it was offered;” on the last day it states, “This was the dedication-offering for the altar after it was anointed.” The Midrash says, “It is as if all of them offered on the first day and it is as if all of them offered on the last day.” The difference is that on the first day, their offerings were all brought only in potentia; on the last day, all their offerings had actually been brought. Thus only on the last day was it possible to give the sum-total of the offerings brought.

Today’s portion of parshas Nasso, when the offerings of all the princes had actually been brought, emphasizes the unity of the princes and through them the unity of all the tribes of Israel. Also, because the offerings were brought with “the priests officiating, the Levites chanting, and the Israelites attending the service,” also the priests and levites were united with all the tribes.

More particularly, the unity engendered on the last day of dedication was in two aspects, similar to the two aspects of unity expressed in the phrase, “as one man with one heart.” The first part of this phrase seems to be redundant, for if it would say only “with one heart,” it would automatically mean “one man.” However, “as one mantl refers to actual unity, while “with one heart” refers to unity in thought and intention (unity of the heart). People may be united in actuality, but not necessarily in thought and intention; or united in thought, but not in actuality. “As one man with one heart means unity both in actuality and in thought.

These two aspects were present on the last day of dedication. In actuality — for the offerings of all the princes had been brought; and in intention — for although on each of the days of dedication a different prince brought an offering identical to that brought by the other princes on the other days, each prince had a different intention in his offering (that his offering should correspond to the Torah, the exodus, etc.). On the last day, however, when the offering of all the princes had been brought and a sum total was made, no differences existed: There were, for example, twelve oxen brought, with no difference between the oxen. Thus on this day, no differences in intention were apparent; only a sum total was present, one unit.

Thus this year, when parshas Nasso is read before Shavuos, there is an increase in the unity of Jews, which in turn increases in the preparations to receiving the Torah, which was given- to Jews on the condition they were united “as one man with one heart.” And although parshas Bamidbar — which most years is read on the Shabbos immediately preceding Shavuos (unlike this year, when pashas Nasso is read) — also emphasizes unity, for it talks of the census of he whole Jewish people, nevertheless, parshas Nasso emphasizes the concept of unity even more forcefully. For in a census, each person is counted individually, whereas parshas Nasso talks of the Jewish people united in one entity, “as one man with one heart.”

The above lesson concerning unity is associated with our previous discussion that even a Jew on the level of sanctity of a High Priest must lower himself to help a Jew who is a spiritual “mes mitzvah.”

At Mattan Torah, we have said, every Jew became of the level of a High Priest, as written, “You shall be for Me a kingdom of priests.” Nevertheless, in order to help another who is spiritually “dead,” to transform him into a “live” Jew, one must lower oneself from his level. In other words, a person who a is “mes mitzvah” is one who performs mitzvos lifelessly; and he must be helped to perform mitzvos with life and enthusiasm. Thus, although the preparation to Mattan Torah involves reaching the ultimate state of sanctity, it is sometimes necessary to forego this sanctity in order to help a fellow Jew.

Lowering oneself from a high level of sanctity to the lower level of another Jew to help him in his spiritual endeavors is the idea of unity of Jews. And according-to what we have previously said that unity is also a preparation to Mattan Torah, it follows that lowering oneself from the level of a High Priest not only does not contradict the preparations to Mattan Torah, but is itself the preparation. Indeed, such service is part of the preparations to reach the level of a “kingdom of priests” at Mattan Torah — for, as we have noted, unity of Jews is a prerequisite for Mattan Torah.

That unity contributes to the idea of a “kingdom of priests” is alluded to in the parshah that will be read at Minchah of this Shabbos — parshas Beha’alosecho. The beginning of this parshah talks of the kindling of the seven lights of the menorah by Aharon the High Priest. Although the menorah was of one beaten piece of gold, it had seven lamps, corresponding to the seven categories of souls within Jewry. Aharon’s function, as the one who lit these lamps, was to effect that every Jew be a “lamp to illuminate,” to disseminate Torah and mitzvos. In other words (utilizing the terminology used previously) to ensure that a Jew who is of the level of a “mes mitzvah” also be a “lamp to illuminate.”

The passage then continues to say, “the seven lamps shall shine toward the center of the menorah.” The “center of the menorah” refers to the central lamp. Why then does it say “the seven lamps shall shine toward the center of the menorah” when they were only six lamps shining towards the center (and seventh) lamp?

The center lamp, however, functioned in two aspects:

1) As one of the seven lamps, only more important than the others because it is the seventh and in the center;

2) as the “center of the menorah,” the inner dimension of the entire menorah. Thus “the seven-lamps shall shine toward the center of the menorah” means that although the seventh lamp was more important than the others even in its function as just one of the seven lamps (the first-aspect), it too, nevertheless, had to shine towards “the center (i.e. the inner dimension ) of the menorah.”

Aharon the High Priest, in his service of lighting the menorah, may be compared to the center lamp in both its functions:

1) his individual qualities (High Priest), similar to the higher importance of the central lamp even as one of seven;

2) he served as “the center of the menorah” — and therefore kindled all the lamps, uniting all Israel.

The service of uniting Jews contributes to and elevates Aharon’s quality as an individual — the High Priesthood (“kingdom of priests”), for it is specifically through the service of uniting Jews that the aspect of being the “center of the menorah” is revealed — an aspect loftier than that of being one of the seven lamps of the menorah. And this is the same theme as elaborated on earlier: Not only does the service of uniting with Jews not detract from being a “kingdom of priests,” but indeed elevates it.

May it be G-d’s will that we very soon merit the fulfillment of the promise read in the haftorah of parshas Beha’alosecho: “I looked, and behold, a menorah all of gold,” meaning that Jewry will then be on the level of a “menorah all of gold” — whole and united.

4. As customary, we shall study a verse of this week’s parshah together with Rashi’s commentary. Ch- 5, verse 7 talks-of a concept central to the whole Torah, the concept of teshuvah, repentance. It states: “They shall confess their sin which they have done; and he shall make restitution of the principal and an additional fifth, and give--it to him whom he has wronged.” Rashi, quoting the words “to him whom he has wronged,” comments, “to him to whom he is obligated.”

The law stated in this verse is the same as that stated in parshas Vayikra (5:21-24). It concerns cases of a person swearing falsely to one’s neighbor regarding to an article left for safe-keeping, a business deal, robbery, withholding funds or denial of finding a lost article. If the person who is guilty of any of the above swears falsely that he was not guilty, then, when he repents, he must not only return the stolen article, the withheld funds, the article left for safekeeping or the found article, but must add one fifth to it.

In our parshah, Rashi, quoting the words “to him whom he has wronged,” comments “to him to whom he is obligated.” Commentators explain that Rashi, who never makes a comment unless it is necessary to explain the plain meaning of the verse, is answering an unspoken question: Why does it state “to him whom he has wronged” and not “to him from whom he has stolen?” Rashi deduces from the choice of words, these commentators say, that the verse is telling us of a specialized case where the guilty person must pay the principal and fifth surcharge not to the one from whom he stole the money, but to the one to whom it belongs. What case is that? If A loaned money to B, and C stole it from B, C must pay A. That is why Rashi explains “to him whom he wronged” to mean “to him to whom he is obligated” — i.e. to him to whom the debtor (B) is obligated.

The above explanation given by commentators is puzzling for the following reasons:

1) They say that Rashi’s unspoken question to which his comment is the answer, is why it states “to him whom he has wronged” and not “to him from whom he has stolen.” However, this verse does not refer only to theft, as Rashi himself writes at the beginning of the passage (5:6): “It repeats and notes here the section concerning one who steals and swears falsely, that which is stated in parshas Vayikra” — and the passage in parshas Vayikra (5:21-24) deals explicitly with several cases: “If one lies to his neighbor [involving] an article left for safekeeping, a business deal, robbery, withholding funds or finding a lost object and denying it.” How, then, can this verse possibly state “to him from whom he has stolen,” when it deals with offenses other than theft? The verse must use a general term to include all these differences — “to him whom he has wronged”!

2) According to the commentators, Rashi’s words “to him to whom he is obligated” mean that the thief must pay the creditor of the one who was robbed. Where do we find in the verse — or even in Rashi’s commentary itself — any indication that the verse is talking about theft of a loan?

Another matter needing clarification concerns the differences in terminology between our parshah and parshas Vayikra — in both Scripture and Rashi. The verse in our parshah states, 11to him whom he has wronged,” while in parshas Vayikra it states (5:24) “to him to whom it belongs.” Rashi in our parshah says “to him to whom he is obligated,” while in parshas Vayikra he says “to him to whom the, money belongs.”

The Explanation

When we learn the verses in our parshah and in parshas Vayikra, the following question arises. In auz-parshah it states, “he shall make restitution of the principal and an additional fifth, and give it to him whom he has wronged.” The words, “to him whom he has wronged” seem superfluous. Similarly, in parshas Vayikra, where it states, “He shall restore the principal and an extra fifth; he shall give it to him to whom it belongs,11 the words “to him to whom it belongs” seem superfluous. For once the verses have told us that “he shall make restitution” and “He shall restore the principal and an extra fifth,” it seems unnecessary to repeat that he should give it “to him whom he has wronged” or 11to him to whom it belongs.”

The words “give it” in both verses is necessary, for the purpose of emphasizing how one should give the principal and fifth — a proper giving, as the Talmud says (B. Basra 53a), “a giving is made in a liberal spirit.” Also, it can make a difference in halachah: If one is in doubt to whom he owes restitution, may he fulfill his obligation by giving it to the court, or, since he must “give it,” perhaps he has not fulfilled his obligation until he actually gives it to the owners? But, the necessity to include the words “give it” does not necessitate the rest of the verse — “to him whom he has wronged.” The verse could simply state, “He shall make restitution and give the principal and an additional fifth.” The same would apply to parshas Vayikra.

Rashi in our parshah therefore says that the words “to him whom he has wronged” do teach us something — that the restitution must be made “to him to whom he is obligated.” Similarly, in parshas Vayikra, the words “to him to whom it belongs” teach that restitution must be made “to him to whom the money belongs.” What this means, we shall shortly discuss.

Thus, although both our parshah and parshas Vayikra talk of the same thing — restitution of the principal and payment of an extra fifth each of these parshahs teach us something new and therefore the terminology of the verses and of Rashi, differs in the two parshahs.

Parshas Vayikra says that he must make restitution 1tto him to whom it belongs” — “it” referring to the money. Thus Rashi comments that it means 11to him to whom the money belongs.” Our verse, however, says that restitution must be made t1to him to whom he has wronged” — the “he” referring to the one who committed the wrong. Thus Rashi comments that it means, “to him to whom he is obligated,” the “he is obligated” referring to the person who, through committing a wrong, becomes obligated to the injured party.

The reason for these differences in the two parshahs stems from the different thing each parshah teaches us. Parshas Vayikra teaches us new laws concerning the payment of the fifth surcharge. In the words of Rashi (Vayikra 5:24): “The Torah included many fifths in one principal; for if he denied the fifth, and swore [falsely] and then confessed, he must again bring a fifth of that fifth [which he denied]. And thus he continues to add [fifths] ...” What does this mean? A person stole money, then swore falsely that he was innocent. When he repents and admits his guilt, he must pay the principal and a fifth surcharge. If he paid the principal but not the fifth, and then swore falsely that he had paid the fifth, then again repents and admits that he owes the fifth, he, must now pay the fifth (which is now considered the principal) plus a fifth of the fifth as surcharge. And so on if he again did not pay the new fifth and swore falsely.

Now, this is puzzling. We can understand-why the. guilty party should pay the first fifth (on the theft of the original principal), for he stole money that belonged to the injured party. For we find even more severe punishment for cases of theft: If a person stole, and was caught with the goods in his possession (i.e., not that he himself confessed), he must pay double. Further, if he stole an ox (or a sheep) and killed it or sold it, he must pay five times the principal (in the case of an ox; four times in the case of a sheep). Certainly, then, in our case, it is understandable that if one stole another’s possessions, and then confessed, he should pay a surcharge (of one fifth). But why should the thief, if he swore falsely that he paid the fifth, have to pay a surcharge of a “fifth of the fifth”? He did not steal the first fifth from the original party?! Rashi therefore explains that he pays “to him to whom the money belongs.” Since it was the injured party’s money originally, all monies deriving from it also belong to him — all the fifths.

Our parshah, however, teaches us something else: Why even the original fifth should be paid to the injured party. Our parshah, which says that one must make restitution of the principal “and an additional fifth,” comes after we have already learned the law of paying a fifth surcharge in a different case — in parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 27:15-19). If a person consecrates his house or field to G-d (i.e., to the Sanctuary), then wishes to redeem it, he must pay an extra fifth to have it revert to his possession. When we now learn our parshah concerning a case of paying a fifth surcharge to an injured party, not to the Sanctuary, it- is necessary to explain why the thief should have to pay an extra fifth to the injured party when he stole only the principal, not the fifth. In other words, the injury done was only to the principal. [This- question does not arise in parshas Vayikra, for we have there not yet learned about paying a fifth to the Sanctuary when redeeming a house or field.]

The verse therefore says that the thief must pay “to him whom he has wronged,” on which Rashi comments, 11to him to whom he is obligated.” Since he has wronged him, and has become obligated to pay the principal, the thief must appease the injured party by paying an extra fifth (similar to paying double when caught with the goods, or four or five times the amount when having killed or sold the stolen animal).

5. On this Shabbos we learn the sixth chapter of the tractate Avos. This chapter is not really part of the Mishneh Avos, but is a Braisah. It was made part of the recital of Pirkei Avos on the Shabbosim between Pesach and Shavuos, for since there are six Shabbosim in this period, this Braisah is recited on the sixth Shabbos as the sixth chapter.

Pirkei Avos is learned between Pesach and Shavuos as a preparation to receiving the Torah on Shavuos. The sixth chapter (which is really a Braisah) is particularly associated with receiving the Torah, and therefore is learned on the Shabbos immediately prior to Mattan Torah — for as we see, this chapter is called “Kinyan Torah” — “Acquisition of Torah.”

This chapter begins with the words, “The Sages taught [this Braisah] in the language of the Mishneh; blessed is He who chose them and their teaching.” The preceding chapters are actual Mishneh; this one is a Braisah. Its first words tell us that although it is a Braisah, it was said “in the language of the Mishneh.” The next words, “blessed is * He who chose them and their teaching,” refers to both the Sages of the Mishneh and of the Braisah — and to their teachings, Mishneh and Braisah.

The teachings in tractate Avos are “words of piety”: Because the sixth chapter has been made part of Pirkei Avos, its teachings, too, are 11words of piety.” What is the “piety” taught us in the words, “The Sages taught [this Braisah] in the language of the Mishneh”?

These words tell us that the function and task of “Sages” is to teach Torah to students (“The Sages taught”). They may think that because Torah calls them “Sages,” they should have nothing to do with others so as to be able to study Torah for themselves. The “words of piety” in this chapter say otherwise: “The Sages taught” — it is the duty of a Sage to teach others. In the words of the Alter Rebbe (Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:8): “It is a positive commandment from the Torah upon each and every Sage of Israel to teach all the students, although they are not his children, as it is said, “‘You shall teach them to your children” — these are your students.”’ Thus, anyone who is a “Sage” in that he knows some knowledge, must teach that knowledge to others.

The Braisah then continues: “The Sages taught in the language of the Mishneh.” A Sage may think that he has fulfilled his obligation by teaching his students the concept just once, and then leave without making sure that they have absorbed the knowledge. The words “The Sages taught in the language of the Mishneh” says otherwise: A “Sage” must ensure that his-students understand what he tells them; therefore he must teach them “in the language of the Mishneh,11 which is “brief and encompasses many concepts.” In the words of the Alter Rebbe: “He teaches and repeats the matter several times until they understand well the depths of the halachah with its reason, as it is said, ‘Teach the children of Israel; put it in their mouths’; and it is said, ‘These are the laws which you shall place before them.”’

The above is associated with the study of Rambam’s work, “Mishneh Torah,” which is written in the language of the Mishneh. He writes in the Introduction: “I studied all these works (Talmud, Sifra, etc.) with the view of putting together the clear results obtained from these works in regard to what is forbidden and permitted, clean and unclean, with the other laws of the Torah — all in clear language and terse style ... without questions and answers ... so that all the laws be clear to small and great.”

There is a lesson in this for teachers, and especially for those who choose the teachers: One should choose as teachers people who will teach “in clear language and terse style.” One should teach his students the plain meaning of the studies, and not to indulge in “hair-splitting” dialectics, or casuistry.

The story is told of a Rosh Yeshivah who was wont to engage in casuistry when learning Rambam, and to explain each passage in Rambam in various ways, using “hair-splitting” methods. When he passed on and was standing before the Heavenly Court, he told the Court what he had achieved on earth: He had explained Rambam’s words that many people had found difficulty with, and had given ten explanations for each concept. To the Court’s question as to how he knew if his explanations were correct, he responded that the Court should summon Rambam, and ask him! Because this person was great in Torah they had to accede to his demand, and summoned Rambam. The Rosh Yeshivah then told Rambam his involved explanations of those passages which many people had difficulty in understanding. Rambam answered that when he wrote those passages he meant [not the involved “hair-splitting dialectics attributed to him by the Rosh Yeshivah, but] the plain meaning of his words! The Rosh Yeshivah then said to Rambam: If your intention was the plain meaning — what does it teach us?!

When teaching students, the first thing to ensure is that they be trained to have a clear, direct mind (“a straight head”). This, of course, does not mean to negate broadening and sharpening a student’s mind with study in a dialectical manner; it means that dialectics has a place only after a student has become accustomed to think clearly and directly — by first teaching him the plain meaning of the words “in clear language and terse style.”

A person may claim, however, that if he will learn only the plain meaning, without delving into complicated reasoning and dialectics, he will not have deduced any new insights. And the Talmud says that a person prefers “one measure of his own to nine measures of his friends.”

The answer to this comes from the next words of this Braisah: “blessed is He who chose them and their teaching.” G-d’s choice of the Sages is “in them and in their teaching.” In other words, the principal quality of Sages (for which G-d chose them), is that they learn Torah “in the language of- the Mishneh” “in clear language and terse style.”

6. [The following words were said in connection to the Pegishah that took place on this weekend.]

Jews have gathered together on this Shabbos to inspire one another in Torah and mitzvos (as a preparation to receiving the Torah), particularly in matters associated with family life according to Torah. They have gathered to discuss these aspects, and, mainly, to undertake good resolutions for actual deed. When these resolutions are accepted as a community, the lofty distinction of a community helps their outcome to be successful.

This gathering is, by Divine Providence, taking place on this Shabbos before Mattan Torah, and there is a connection between the two. G-d and Jewry are as a groom and bride (“Shir Hashirim” — the “Song of Songs,” talks of the union of groom and bride, and commentators say it is an analogy for the union of G-d and Jewry); and the union between the two took place at Mattan Torah, which was their betrothal and marriage.

Before the Torah was given, a Heavenly decree existed that the upper and lower regions should not meet. At Mattan Torah this decree was abolished, and through the observance of Torah and mitzvos, G-d and Jewry would be totally united together, similar to the total union between man and wife.

“Family life” is connected with the first (and therefore very important) mitzvah in the Torah: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Bereishis 1:28). This mitzvah should be fulfilled unhesitatingly, without any debate (of financial ability to raise children, etc.), for having children is the loftiest of blessings and merits.

“Be fruitful and multiply” is the foremost aspect of family life, for the purpose of marriage is the union of man and woman. The ultimate in that union is that “They shall become one flesh” (Bereishis 2:24); and this is achieved by the birth of a child, for “The child is formed by both (the man and woman), and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one” (Rashi, ibid.). This is the idea of a “family” — a single unit, one entity.

The union of a man and woman in marriage is critical to the wholeness of them both. Some people think that the purpose of marriage is so that both partners can reach a state loftier and more whole than when single. Man is an individual entity and woman is an individual entity; if they wish to gain a state greater than when single, they must unite through marriage.

Torah says differently. Man by himself is but “half a body” and woman by herself is but “half a body.” A half of anything cannot obviously be whole. To be whole, then, man and woman must unite through marriage.

True, before marriage, man and woman live independently and serve G-d independently. But this period of being single is but a preparation to the principal service — which takes place after uniting together through marriage, when a special Divine blessing rests upon them, as written (Bereishis 1:27-28), “Male and female He created them and He blessed them” — and extending to the ultimate blessing, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill- the earth.”

Not all is clear,- however: When we say that a man and a woman by themselves are but half a body, it means they are equal halves. How does this accord with the Torah’s command, “You shall place &---king over yourselves” — which, halachah says, must be a man, not a woman; or with what Torah says of everyday life, that “He shall rule over YOU

Let’s draw an analogy to a person’s body. A body comprises various limbs, each of which has a unique function. For example: the brain — intellect, the heart — emotions. Of course, the mind works on behalf of the whole body, and the heart feels for the whole body. When each limb performs its function properly on behalf of the whole body, the body is whole.

Each limb has a specific function which it carries out on behalf of the whole body, and not two or more, because otherwise, it could not carry out any function ~roperly. We see, for example, that when a person has to carry out two equally important tasks at the same time, he cannot do even one properly. So too the mind and heart: So that the mind can carry out its function of thinking properly, it is not given the function of having emotions too. And the same applies to the heart.

The difference between man and woman, who individually are but half a body and together are a whole, is analogous to the difference between the mind and heart. Each partner in marriage works on behalf of both of them (the whole body); but so that the work be whole and proper, each has a specific function.

To return to our analogy of the heart and mind, it is impossible that the body follow the dictates of both the-mind and heart when there is a clash between them. One must follow one or the other; and G-d created man such that the mind rules the heart. If, for example, one’s feelings push a person to eat a certain food because it seems sweet and tempting, while the intellect in his mind tells him it is bad for his health, the mind rules the heart. For feelings see only the external aspects; the intellect can plumb its depths and arrive at the truth.

In the single body that is comprised of man and woman, it is likewise impossible that, in the event of a difference in opinion, the “body” follow both. In the words of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 8a): “There is one leader for the generation, and not two leaders for the generation.” Rulership must be given to one or the other, and Torah therefore says, “He shall rule over you” — it is given to the man. Of course, it does not mean literal rulership, forcibly, but it is similar to the way the mind rules the heart: the mind uses its intellect also on behalf of the heart, and the man’s intellect works on behalf of the woman (such that the woman’s intellect becomes as the man’s).

May it be G-d’s will that this gathering be successful, both in the discussion of the above concepts, and in the undertaking of good resolutions for actual deed.