This discourse starts with the words of Tehillim “Open my eyes and I shall gaze at [hidden] wonders from Your Torah” (“גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך”). This should immediately grab our attention, since the Rebbe called this year “I will show wonders” (“אראנו נפלאות”) and over the year would proceed to explain that all we need to do is “open our eyes”. In this discourse the Rebbe explains to us what this means.
The verse mentioned above has a connection with Lag B’Omer (when the maamor was originally said, and when, 14 years later, it was published in 5751). Because the word גל (“Gal” — Open [my eyes]”) contains the same letters as “Lag” B’Omer ל”ג בעומר.
Lag B’Omer is not only the day that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai appeared (to fleshly eyes) to pass away, but it was the day of “the main revelation” of the inner dimension of Torah. As brought in the Zohar that Rashbi revealed “holy words that he had not revealed over the course of his life (because the things he revealed [at the time of his passing] were the highest matters, that even Rashbi had been afraid to reveal then prior to this.)”. Who fails to see the bold hint here — that the Rebbe, in the year before our fleshly eyes perceived 27 Adar and Gimmel Tammuz, is revealing the us (in Dvar Malchus) things which had not been revealed previously.
The Rebbe proceeds to address a simple question: if the inner dimension of Torah is concealed from us, then the request should be “reveal to me” the hidden matters. But the verse requests instead “open my eyes” — implying that the concealment is due to the eyes and not to the matters being hidden from sight.
This Chassidic discourse was printed in honor of the Yahrtzeit of the Rebbe’s brother, Yisroel Aryeh Leib. Fittingly, it begins with the words of the posuk “Oh, that you were like a brother to me,” (Shir Hashirim, 8:1). Rashi comments that this verse refers to the way Yosef dealt kindly with his brothers even though they had mistreated him (by selling him as a slave to Egypt). Contrasting this: there is a midrash which says that the verse refers to his beloved brother Binyomin, who, unlike his older brothers, had no hand in selling Yosef down to Egypt.
The discourse goes into depth about the nature of free choice, and the responsibility of Yosef’s brothers for selling him even though later Yosef reveals that it was divinely orchestrated for the good — so that Yosef should rise to power in Egypt and be in a position to provide for his family when they sought respite from the famine in the land of Canaan. However, we are now only going to focus on the part of the discourse that shows an open connection to the sichos of Dvar Malchus.
The verse “Oh, that you were like a brother to me,” is a request from the Jewish people to Hashem — to relate to us like a brother. It is understood why we would interpret it to be referring to the brothers who sold him: the brothers did evil to Yosef but he repaid them with kindness. Similarly, we request from Hashem that even though we have “done evil to Him” through our sins, He should repay us with kindness. However, as we know from the story in chumash, Yosef’s kindness followed the trials and tribulations that he put the brothers through in order to bring them to do teshuva and acknowledge their sin. By asking for Hashem to relate to us like Yosef to Binyomin, who had no hand in the sale of Yosef, we are asking for open and revealed good without any “trials and tribulations”.
The difference between the two interpretations (whether the verse is referring to Yosef’s conduct to his 10 brothers or to Binyomin) will be understood as the difference between a number of contrasting concepts, all of which contain a common thread.
[The discourse presented here was edited by the Rebbe and printed for Beis Iyar 5751 (1991), and in retrospect we can see how it is meant to guide us and strengthen us through the present time (even more so than when it was published), as will be explained, בעז”ה.]
The haftorah that is read when Shabbos falls out in Erev Rosh Chodesh (the day before the new month when the moon is completely concealed) begins with the verse: “Yehonosan said to him: tomorrow is [Rosh] Chodesh and you will be remembered (נפקדת) because your place will be vacant (כי יפקד מושבך).”
The words of this verse demand explanation: why are words from the same root — נפקדת and כי יפקד — used for completely opposite concepts? “You will be remembered” is seemingly quite the opposite from “your place will be vacant”, which implies that he will be missing?! To explain this, the Rebbe Continue reading →
What is easier: keeping a powerful beast like a cow or a bull locked up in it’s pen, or a bird? Which requires “additional guarding”?
Although a bird possesses nothing of the power that the bull has, it has an additional ability that even the most powerful beast lacks — the power of flight. Thus, fences are sufficient to keep a mighty bull locked up, but a tiny bird is not properly guarded unless the walls are capped by a roof.
In Halocho this expresses itself in the laws regarding courtyards — that a large courtyard that is not covered by a roof is considered a carmelis (by Rabbinic decree, even though according to Torah it is a private domain (reshus hayochid)), but if it is covered with a roof then it remains a private domain according to Rabbinic opinion as well.
The maamor printed for 18 Nissan, 5751 (anniversary of the Rebbe’s Bris Mila) explains this in terms of our Divine service: the animal for which fences are sufficient is our animal soul; the bird that requires a roof is our Intellectual Soul (Nefesh Hasichlis). The animal soul, while powerful, has four legs on the ground and looks down — it’s only attraction and interest is gashmiyus. It is enough to build fences to pen it in. But the Nefesh Hasichlis, while it is a human intellect which relates to worldly things, possesses an inclination to “fly away” to contemplate things which are of a higher nature. Thus it needs a roof as well.
This discourse of the Rebbe was edited and printed for distribution for the Rebbe’s birthday, 11 Nissan, 5751. A lengthy and deep discourse, we mention here only the main points, reflecting the themes of the Dvar Malchus sichos from the same period.
“Tefilla leMoshe” is called by our sages the prayer of a rich man, and “Tefilla leDovid” is the prayer of a poor man. Since tefilla is defined as our asking for our needs, what is a rich man’s prayer? What does he need?
We find that according to Torah one must fill the needs of the poor man. This doesn’t only mean those necessities required by every person, it means we are obligated also to fill his personal needs. If he had previously been wealthy and was accustomed to a servant and a horse to run before him, then for him such a thing is lacking and we must provide it for him. One is obligated to fill what he lacks, but one is not obligated to make him rich. Thus, it comes out that even having a servant and a horse running before him (i.e. to be not lacking anything) is still not wealthy.
Wealthy, explains the Rebbe, is “superabundance”, which is more than just that nothing is lacking. Furthermore, it means that this abundance is not received from another source (and thus could be cut off or taken away); rather, it is inherently his — making him rich in essence (עשיר בעצם). This is why our sages say “there is no one wealthy except in da’as (knowledge)”. Rich (in knowledge) means that what he has learned has become unified with him and part of him as a result of his own effort (as opposed to remaining on the level of what others taught him).
Back to the question: one who is rich has superabundance — what, then, is his prayer?! The Rebbe answers: Continue reading →
A Chassidic discourse, called a maamor, was edited by the Rebbe and published in honor of the Hillula of the Rebbe Rashab, Beis Nissan, 5751. This was the day after Shabbos Vayikra, the very beginning of the cycle of Dvar Malchus. We are going to extract a small section of this maamor which stands out boldly as a descriptive explanation of the sharp and shocking words of the Rebbe on 28 Nissan (a few weeks after this maamor was released): “I’ve done all I can do, now I give it over to you to do all that you can do to bring Moshiach in actuality”.
The section of the maamor we will look at states as follows:
The Rebbe Rashab explains the difference between two inyonim: “its beginning is wedged into its end and its end into its beginning” (נעוץ תחילתן בסופן וסופן בתחילתן) and [the similar expression that] “the end of the deed was first in thought” (סוף מעשה במחשבה תחילה). The difference between them is that “it’s end” (סופן) refers to the end and completion of the thought, wedged into the beginning of that which is being given (ההמשכה). And a moshol is brought for this from the giving of tzedaka. That the beginning (of the giving) is the mercy (רחמים) that is awakened towards the poor man.
The concept that “its end is wedged into its beginning” is that the main intent in the awakening of mercy (“its beginning”) is
This Maamor was distributed by the Rebbe himself on Purim Koton, 5752, less than two weeks before the dramatic event of 27 Adar I (“Chof Zayin Adar“), making this the “last” Kuntres (so far) that the Rebbe distributed. Combined with the tremendous chiddushim of the maamor, it has earned a special status as a clear guide for how to proceed in our efforts to bring about the true and complete Geuloh.
The Maamor is based on a maamor that the Previous Rebbe said in Russia (“V’kibel HaYehudim”, 5689), and comes to explain the opening verse of Parshas Tetzaveh:
And you shall command the children of Yisroel, and they shall take to you pure olive oil, crushed for luminary, to kindle the lamps continually.
The Rebbe asks a series of questions on this verse:
Why does the verse state “You (Moshe) shall command…” when Hashem is the One who commands and Moshe is only the Shliach to carry out the command?
Why does it state that the Bnei Yisroel should bring the pure olive oil (for the lighting of the Menorah) to Moshe when the Menorah is lit by Aharon haCohen and not Moshe?
Why does it state “crushed for the luminary”, when we would expect it to say “for the light”?
Why does it state “to kindle the lights continuously” when in the very next verse it states “from evening until morning”?
In the course of answering these questions, the Rebbe will reveal some astonishing chiddushim that serve as a guidepost for our avoidah in this period.
This maamor begins with the verse of parshas Mishpotim: “These are the statues that you shall place before them: if you will acquire a Hebrew servant…”. The Talmud Yerushalmi says that statues the verse is referring to are the secrets of Torah. This raises a question, since the term “mishpotim” refers to the basic statutes of the Torah which the human mind can grasp (including the nations of the world), but not the Torah’s hidden secrets. Furthermore, what is the connection with acquiring a Hebrew servant?
The defining element of a Hebrew servant is his acceptance of the yoke of servitude: his kabbolos ‘ol. The reason this appears at the beginning of the Torah’s many “mishpotim” (statutes understood by the human mind) is to hint even when we fulfill the Torah’s laws which we understand — we must be fulfilling them [as well] out of kabbolos ‘ol, like a servant who does what he is told without understanding. After all, the main thing about these laws is that they are the Will of Hashem, and Will is above reason and understanding. But haven’t we defined the mishpotim as laws which our mind does understand? In fact, it is not a contradiction: Continue reading →
Note: This Maamor is NOT based on the chapter of Bosi Legani that we learn this year. (Unless you are reading this in the year תשצ”ב)
For 40 years the Rebbe would say a Chassidic discourse on one of the 20 chapters of the last maamor (Chassidic discourse) written by the Frierdicker Rebbe, entitled Bosi LeGani. Every year at the Yud Shevat farbrengen, the Rebbe would say a maamor (sometimes more than one) on that year’s chapter. Beginning from 5749 the Rebbe did not say a new maamor, instead an edited version of a maamor on that year’s chapter was printed. The cycle started again in 5751 (addressing chapter 1) and the maamor printed in 5752 can be expected to have added significance, as it was released during the year of Dvar Malchus sichos. In fact, when looked at in this light one indeed finds a message that fits with the unique chiddushim of 5751-52.
A general point: the edited version of a maamor is often significantly different from the way the Rebbe originally said the maamor. In some instances, the edited maamor is so different from the original that it presents a completely opposite perspective. (For example: the Rebbe once said a maamor in which the he spoke about the superiority of Torah over Mitzvos; when edited and published, the maamor addresses the superiority of Mitzvos over Torah!) In the maamor published for Yud Shevat 5752, it is noteworthy to point out that the relevant “chiddush” is not explicitly stated in the original, unedited version of the maamor which the Rebbe said in 5732 (which can be viewed here), but when edited in 5752 the Rebbe saw fit to state it clearly. The matter is as follows:
One who has been following Dvar Malchus, or has learned the Rebbe’s sichos and maamorim from all the years, is likely familiar with the concepts of the revelation from Above as opposed to the effort we make from below. In this maamor, this is associated with Matan Torah (from Above to below) and the Mishkan (the vessel for receiving the revelation of Elokus). The Rebbe explains that “this that Hashem desired to have a dwelling place down below (“dira b’tachtonim”) is that there will be a revelation of Elokus below via the avoidoh of human beings.” Thus, the main element is the Mishkan (and Mikdash), where the avoidah of korbanos takes place.
The Mishkan (and by extension, the Mikdash) has two distinct stages. The first is the making of the Mishkan (עשיית המשכן), the second is the avoidah which takes place in the mikdash — the Continue reading →
The Kuntres printed for Hey Teves (ה’ טבת) in the year 5752 is a Chassidic Discourse the Rebbe said on parshas Vayigash, 5732, edited for publication under the supervision of the Rebbe himself. The discourse explains some deep concepts in Chassidus, which we will not attempt to explain here; rather, we will take one point in the discourse.
The parsha begins with Yehuda approaching Yosef. As is known, Yosef was dressed as an Egyptian, his brothers had no idea that this was their brother that they had sold into slavery so many years earlier. This “Egyptian” was demanding that their brother Binyomin remain with him as a slave, because of the “theft” of his goblet (which Yosef himself orchestrated). Yehuda fearlessly approaches Yosef and asks — and even demands — that the “Egyptian” let Binyomin return to his father (of whom he says “his soul is bound up with his soul”) and enslave one of the other brothers in his place.
This act of selflessness on the part of Yehuda represents the rectification of the original sale of Yosef, as is known. But as explained according to Chassidus, there are even loftier things occurring here.
To summarize these loftier things, without elaboration: Yosef represents the level of Z”A and Yesod, the mashpia who gives spiritual influence; Yehuda represents the level of Malchus, the mekabel who receives from the mashpia. Yehuda is requesting from Yosef to give over to him the spiritual influence. And more than that, he is asking to receive this, reflecting the active participation of the mekabel.
Obviously, the mashpia (giver) is higher than the mekabel (receiver). But in their source, it is reversed: the source of the mekabel (receiver) is on the level of Kesser (the “crown”) which is far above the source of the mashpia (giver).
Chassidus explains that when the mashpia gives over to the mekabel (who actually has a higher source in Kesser) then the mashpia also receives this level of Kesser. That by giving, the mashpia also receives something even greater from the mekabel.
That said, the Rebbe explains the words of Yehuda “בי אדני” which are usually translated as “please, my lord” or “please, my master”. But the word בי is unusual, it means “in me”, and there the verse would make perfect sense without it. So why is it there? The Rebbe explains as follows:
This that Z”A wants to give over to Malchus (because any bestowal of spiritual influence is only through a desire for such) is because it feels the lofty level of the source of Malchus, which is mainly that by giving over to Malchus the result will be the perfection of that which is drawn down into Z”A. Thus, Yehuda said to Yosef “in me, my lord” בי אדוני, that the spiritual influence drawn down from Z”A to Malchus should be (not for the perfection of Z”A, but rather) in order that this spiritual influence should be drawn down to Malchus, “in me, my lord”.
In other words: one who is in a position to give/teach to others can do it with the consideration of how this is part of his own rectification and perfection, and he is correct. “Helping others is good for you”. But an even higher level is reached when — and this is the Supernal desire — that it should be done without that consideration, but rather only for the sake of and the benefit of the mekabel, the receiver!
After this, Yosef could no longer hold himself back and he revealed himself to his brothers, which is the model for Hashem revealing Himself to us in the true and complete Geuloh!
Dvar Malchus 770 