Posts
Learning & Values » Texts & Writings » Chassidic Texts » Reishit Goyim Amalek
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/97823/jewish/Reishit-Goyim-Amalek.htm
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/livingtorah/player_cdo/aid/363468/jewish/The-Previous-Rebbes-Arrival-to-America.htm
Publisher's Foreword
Share
PrintE-mailNext »
Chapter 1 In honor of the approach of Beis Nissan, we are happy to share with our readers a freshly-edited English translation of Reishis Goyim Amalek 5680 [1920].
This maamar is of particular interest because it was the first discourse delivered by the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of blessed memory, after succeeding to the mantle of leadership on Beis Nissan, 5780 (1920). It is based on the last discourse delivered by his father, the Rebbe Rashab, who passed away on that date.
The original translation of this maamar was first published in 5747 [1987] in response to a call of the Rebbe that it be widely studied in order to ameliorate certain untoward events that clouded the chassidic horizon at that time. And since (in the words of the Rebbe Rayatz) “the words of tzaddikim are eternally true,” we may safely assume that its widespread study today will likewise help to sweeten whatever situations require sweetening today.
To Farbreng with
the Rebbe Rashab in Rostov
This maamar was first heard in the midst of the bitter civil war that shook the cities of Russia in the aftermath of the 1917 Revolution and the First World War. The dangers were so fierce that the Rebbe Rashab had planned to leave Rostov with his family before the approaching Bolsheviks overran it. This plan never eventuated, and in view of the grim situation he even forbade his chassidim to visit him to quench their thirst for Chassidus or to be received for private audience at yechidus.
The chassidim, however, continued to long for their well-loved and well-remembered visits to the home of the Rebbe Rashab. Despite his emergency orders, therefore, a large group of chassidim arrived there on Purim in order to participate in an uplifting farbrengen. Thus it was that the whole spiritual drama described below took place — in the very same building in Rostov that was redeemed from its gentile occupants this year after its seventy years in exile. This house was the home of the Rebbe Rashab from 1915 to 1920, and of the Rebbe Rayatz from 1915 until he was forced to flee from Rostov in 1924. To this day it resounds with many rich and epic moments in Lubavitch history, and it is scheduled to soon house a vigorous new branch of the same Tomchei Temimim Yeshivah which flourished in Rostov until 1924.
The farbrengen to be held with the visiting chassidim was originally intended to be brief. They were to disperse promptly because of the law which unequivocally prohibited all gatherings. Half an hour after it began, however, the Rebbe Rashab said LeChaim! to all those present. From that moment, as one of those present records,1 “we saw a transformation overtake him, as if there was now a new spirit within him.... He called to one of the chassidim and asked him to bring mashke.”
His wife, the Rebbitzin Sterna Sarah, and his son, who was later to succeed him as the Rebbe Rayatz, were fearful for his life.
The Rebbe Rashab was reassuring: “Yosef Yitzchak, don‘t be afraid. We shall remain intact. And I don‘t mean intact in secret chambers; I mean intact as we overtly move outward and extend ourselves.” [In the Yiddish original, mir veln zain gantz mit unzer gantzer yetziah vehispashtus.]
The chassid who recorded these words added his own note to his readers: “You can understand for yourselves what these words were hinting at.” [I.e., an assumed allusion to the Rebbe Rashab‘s own impending passing.]
A Maamar
to Silence Bolsheviks
While the chassidim were seated there around the Rebbe Rashab‘s table, news arrived that Bolsheviks with search-warrants were systematically ransacking their homes. Fear froze their hearts, but the Rebbe Rashab continued as before to rouse them on as they sang. As the same chassid continues: “His conduct appeared wondrously different to anything we had previously seen; we saw overt miracles from him that night.”
Sure enough, while the Rebbe Rashab was in the midst of farbrengen, the search squad knocked at the door. They were told that a search was now out of the question because the Rebbe was now occupied. Their second visit struck terror upon the chassidim, some of whom by this stage were not completely sober. To make things worse, as one would have thought, a mound of incriminating evidence was piled high on the table — the money that these poor chassidim had all contributed and collected for the upkeep of the Tomchei Temimim Yeshivah.
This was the history-making Yeshivah which the Rebbe Rashab himself had founded in Lubavitch in 1897. When he had fled with his family from Lubavitch in White Russia with the approach of the German forces at the height of World War I, it had followed him southeast here, to Rostov on the River Don. Tomchei Temimim was the crucible in which true chassidim were forged. It encapsulated the future of the Chabad-Lubavitch tradition. It was thus the apple of his eye — and the main target of the Yevsektsia.
The Bolsheviks were now inside the room. The money was on the table, and the time had come for the Rebbe Rashab to deliver a maamar.
The eye-witness continues his report: “Before he began he directed that nothing should be removed from the table, and then added: ’As I stand in the present situation, I have no fear of them whatever.‘
“They now took up positions facing him at the table. He turned aside a little and said: ’Nu, let‘s start speaking words of Chassidus, and then they will be altogether nullified.‘
“With that he immediately embarked on the maamar with these words: Reishis goyim Amalek, veachariso adei oved — ’Amalek is the first among nations, and in the end he shall be destroyed.‘ Its theme is that the kelipos do not have any true and intrinsic existence; they are non-entities.
“After standing and looking at him for a long time, the Bolsheviks left without a word. We stayed there till about four a.m.”
The First Maamar
of the Rebbe Rayatz
Two weeks later, on Motzaei Shabbos, the eve of the second of Nissan, the Rebbe Rashab departed this world physically.
In the dynasties of most other chassidic trends, the succession is customarily overt and immediate. In the case of most of our Rebbeim, and so too in this case, the mantle of leadership was accepted in gradual stages and only after some time worn overtly. (In fact, the Rebbe has referred in writing to Beis Nissan as the day on which the Rebbe Rayatz assumed the responsibilities of Rebbe.)
In Lubavitch tradition, the delivery of a maamar by the new incumbent is commonly perceived as indicating the acceptance of the Nesius. Thus, in more recent years, chassidim who were privileged to be present at “770” on the first yahrzeit of the Rebbe Rayatz on Yud Shvat, 5711 [1951], testify that the air was electrified with anticipation: Was the Rebbe going to deliver what was to prove to be the first maamar of one-and-a-half thousand?
Keeping this tradition in mind, the following first-person description of the prelude to the first maamar of the Rebbe Rayatz — i.e., the maamar which appears hereunder — is of acute interest. The description is borrowed from Ashkavta DeRebbe,2 an account of the period of the Rebbe Rashab‘s passing written by one of his close disciples, the eminent Rabbi Moshe DovBer Rivkin, later rosh yeshivah of Yeshivas Torah VaDaas in New York.
“It was after Minchah on Shabbos Kodesh [Parshas] Tzav, the last day of the shivah. The chassidim were all waiting for Maariv in the dining room adjoining the study of the Rebbe [Rashab], whose soul is in Eden, and the Rebbe [Rayatz] Shlita was in the study alone. One of his attendants called for me, and as soon as I entered he said with a broken heart: ’My father, after all, ordered me to speak words of Chassidus [i.e., to deliver maamarim] to Anash. But who am I, and how can I bring myself to stand in front of the members of the chassidic fraternity and deliver maamarim?‘
“In his humility he wanted to continue, but I interrupted him by saying that I would rather not hear further words in this vein.
“He continued: ’Nevertheless, since my father gave me an order, I would like to deliver a maamar of Chassidus for you. In that way I will have discharged my obligation to fulfill my father‘s holy instruction.‘
“I of course agreed. He did not want to be seated; instead, we walked about in the study, and he recited for me the last maamar which the Rebbe [Rashab] of blessed memory delivered publicly — the above-mentioned maamar that begins, Reishis Goyim Amalek. The wording was identical to that of the original maamar, except that he interspersed many glosses of his own. When it came to an end and I was about to leave, he detained me for a moment and asked me not to reveal to anyone what had transpired.
“ ’Why not?‘ I asked. ’In fact, I would very much like to let people know,‘ and so on.
“He earnestly repeated his request and I remained silent. When I left the study, however, I shared my information ’as a secret‘ only with the elderly chassid, Rabbi Shmuel Gourary. Since he had not been ordered to keep it a secret, he promptly passed in on. Within a few minutes, by word of mouth, the news had spread throughout the whole of the chassidic brotherhood, to whom it served as a measure of consolation.”
A Tzaddik's Merest Vessels
Retain their Sanctity
Rabbi Rivkin further relates that the Rebbe Rayatz lent him a transcript (a ksav) of the maamar for a few days, but he was afraid to copy it without explicit permission from the Rebbe. At any rate, he did take the liberty of copying the following few lines (from sec. 4 below). The first sentence of this passage is repeated verbatim from the parent maamar of the Rebbe Rashab, and its continuation is part of a long parenthetical addition by the Rebbe Rayatz: “Anything which G-d ordained to serve as a proper receptor for the irradiation of His light enjoys an essential and absolute existence. (One might add that this is the meaning of teachings such as,3 ’Holiness cannot be displaced,‘ and4 ’Ritual objects retain their sanctity.‘ Thus, the place in which a tzaddik studied Torah and engaged in the service of G-d retains its sanctity even after he has risen out of corporeal life and begun true life, for the luminescence of his Divine service remains there. We may therefore say that the place in which he studied and engaged in Torah, and all the vessels he utilized in the course of his spiritual service, retain their sanctity as part of his personal share in the spiritual rectification and elevation of the world...).”
In this passage, the Rebbe once observed,5 we see “something truly wondrous” — that a tzaddik‘s holiness fully retains its ongoing power not only with regard to his manuscripts and learned books and the like, but even with regard to his everyday objects, such as his table and chair. Moreover, the Rebbe points out, the context makes it clear that the Rebbe Rayatz is likening this relationship to the relationship between the “vessels” and the “lights” of the realm of Atzilus.
Furthermore, the Rebbe continues, this ongoing holiness continues powerfully while the table remains an ordinary everyday table. So powerfully, indeed, does it continue, that (as the passage interpolated by the Rebbe Rayatz goes on to describe) “once, in about the year 5645 or 5646 [1885-6], I saw my revered father [the Rebbe Rashab] enter the study of his father — my grandfather [the Rebbe Maharash]..., where he stood against the table, opposite his father‘s chair.”
“In other words,” the Rebbe concludes, “he entered that room exactly as he had been accustomed to entering it for yechidus. And the term yechidus signifies that the yechidah (the soul‘s innermost core) of the individual coming for yechidus fuses with the yechidah of the individual to whom he comes for yechidus....”
Firstly: Though the Rebbe himself had described Reishis Goyim Amalek as being “evidently the closing maamar [of the Rebbe Rashab],” he did not consider it right that this preface should describe it — without further qualification — as “the closing maamar,” because there is one more maamar, the one beginning Hineh Anochi, which the Rebbe Rashab delivered after this one.
The solution to this seeming anomaly is to be found in Rabbi Rivkin‘s account of the unique circumstances in which the maamar beginning Hineh Anochi was delivered: “On Shabbos Kodesh Parshas [Ki] Sisa, a maamar was delivered [by the Rebbe Rashab] on the words, Hineh Anochi Kores Bris.... The only ones present were his son [the Rebbe Rayatz] and three others, including myself, the writer of these lines. Hence, Reishis Goyim Amalek is the last maamar that the Rebbe Rashab delivered publicly. It is also the first maamar that the Rebbe Rayatz delivered when he first became Rebbe.”
The Rebbe goes on to say that “this may frequently be seen in the two manners in which material is added in the maamarim of the Tzemach Tzedek: (a) the interpolations are indicated by parentheses, sometimes introduced by [an initial letter or whatever] to show that what follows is an appended gloss; (b) the interpolations are incorporated in the body of the text, sometimes entailing changes in it, so that together they become one maamar — as in this case.”
Keeping in mind that Reishis Goyim Amalek was explicitly intended to nullify the Amalek of that era, viz., the Bolsheviks, it may perhaps be assumed that the delivery of these parallel maamarim in Adar 5730 [1970] was likewise intended to nullify the painful decree which at exactly this time the Rebbe began to publicly campaign against — the issue which is popularly known as “Who is a Jew?”
Some years later, on the eve of Rosh Chodesh Nissan, 5747 [1987],6 the Rebbe urged that Reishis Goyim Amalek be widely studied. At the same time he made what appears to have been an allusion to the insistent appeal which was being heard in the Federal Court at exactly that time contesting the ownership of the historic library of the Rebbe Rayatz. (Ultimately, the court decided that it was not to be inherited by any private family member; it was the lawful property of Agudas Chassidei Chabad, with the Rebbe at its head ex officio).
An End to Darkness
To conclude with the thought with which the Rebbe closes one of the maamarim of 5730 [1970]:7 Battling against the kelipah of Amalek by means of the Divine spark within one‘s soul and by means of one‘s conscious faculties brings about8 “G-d‘s battle against Amalek from generation to generation,” a phrase which the Targum relates to the generation of Mashiach. It brings about the time at which9 “[G-d] has set a limit to darkness” — with the imminent coming of Mashiach.
In the meantime, as we said above, the original translation of this maamar was first published in 5747 [1987] in response to a call of the Rebbe that it be widely studied in order to ameliorate certain untoward events that clouded the chassidic horizon at that time. And since (in the words of the Rebbe Rayatz) “the words of tzaddikim are eternally true,” we may safely assume that its widespread study today will likewise help to sweeten whatever situations require sweetening today. This will surely bring us closer to the days in which there will be10 “neither envy nor competition” — the days in which “the occupation of the whole world will be solely to know G-d.”
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Lechah Dodi
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/531526/jewish/Chapter-1.htm
Jewish Practice » Lifecycle Events » Marriage » The Wedding » Readings & Tools » Tools » Lecha Dodi (Chassidic Discourses) » Lechah Dodi, 5689
Chapter 1
From the writings & talks of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch
Share
PrintE-mail Discuss (0)Next »
Chapter 2 Lechah Dodi, 5689
לכה דודי תרפ״טּ
לכה דודי לקראת כלה פני נקבלה
“Come, my Beloved to meet the Bride; let us welcome the Shabbos” Behold the Shabbos is called both bride and queen as in the expression “the Shabbos queen.” [The above metaphors are related to a wedding. In that context] the groom is called a king, as mentioned in Pirkei d’R. Eliezer 1 “a groom is like a king,” and the bride is called a queen.
[The concept also finds its parallel in the spiritual realms] as the Torah 2 declares “Let us make man in our image after our likeness.” Man below [on the earthly plane] reflects the form and image of the Higher Man, i.e., the heavenly Sefiros. [In that realm, the quality of] Ze’er Anpin of Atzilus known by its initials as Z”A [which corresponds to G-d’s “emotional powers”] is called “the King” as explained concerning [the quotation from the Zohar 3]: “The image of each and every soul stood before the holy King” i.e. Z”A of Atzilus. The Sefirah of Malchus Royalty is called the queen.
The Zohar 4 comments “a king without a queen is neither a king, nor is he great.” The essential factor is the union of Z”un Z”A and Nukvah [the Kabbalistic term for Malchus. This is emphasized] by the Torah’s statement 5 “Male and female He created them. And G-d blessed them…” [There, too, the blessing came to them, not to one alone.]
[To return to the concept of Shabbos.] The Shabbos must be received with joy, for it is the source of all blessings, both heavenly and earthly. [The Zohar states 6] “all the days are blessed from the Shabbos.” The same applies to a bride; she must also be greeted [with joy] for she is the source of all the blessings of above.
The above expression לכה דודי לקראת כלה פני שבת נקבלה is used in the Kabbalas Shabbos prayers. Its source is the Talmud’s 7 [description of how the sages would prepare to greet the Shabbos]. R. Chaninah robed himself in nice clothing, 8 stood at sunset on Shabbos eve, and exclaimed, ‘Come and let us go forth to welcome the Shabbos queen.’ R. Yannai donned his robes (Shabbos clothing) on Shabbos eve and exclaimed, ‘Come, O bride, Come, O bride.’ (Because of his great love for the Shabbos, he would refer to it as his bride. 9) The Zohar 10 [also emphasizes the relationship between a bride and Shabbos. It] declares “On Shabbos, one must add on from the mundane to the holy in all matters: in one’s eating, drinking, clothing, and reclining. One must prepare a pleasant sleeping chamber with embroidered covers and pillows from [the best of] all that is found in his house, just as one would prepare a marriage chamber for a bride. For behold, Shabbos is a queen and a bride.” Just as the Shabbos is the source of all blessings, similarly, the rejoicing of the groom and bride and the greeting of them is the source of blessing.
[The above can be explained in terms of a quotation from Isaiah 11 :] “For upon all the glory shall there be a canopy.” [The word all implies at least] two aspects of honor the honor of the groom and the honor of the bride. G-d is [often referred to as] the groom and the Jewish people as His bride: as our sages 12 commented, “on the day of His wedding the day of the giving of the Torah.” Honor refers to an encompassing light [a revelation above our conscious powers]. The honor of the groom refers to G-d’s great love for the Jewish people, as it is written: 13 “I have loved you, said the L-rd.” The honor of the bride refers to the great love of the Jewish people for G-d, as it is written: 14 “My soul longs, indeed it faints [for the courts of the L-rd].” The marriage canopy represents a more general encompassment of the groom and bride.
[These spiritual qualities are mirrored in the marriage ceremony on the physical plane.] Many people come to greet the groom proceeding afterwards, together with the groom, to greet the bride. Then, the groom covers the bride with a veil and they go to the marriage canopy.
[Why is it necessary for the groom to cover the bride’s face?] In order for a Mekabel (receiver) to ascend and approach the level of the Mashpiah 15 (giver) it is first necessary for the Mashpiah to establish a connection, by connecting his external qualities with those of the receiver. Through this bond the receiver can elevate himself and approach the level of the Mashpiah, enabling him to receive the inner qualities of the Mashpiah.
Synopsis
This chapter explains that a groom and a bride can be compared to the heavenly Sefiros Z”A and Malchus. Greeting the bride is compared with receiving the Shabbos, which contains the blessings for all the days of the week. The honor of the groom refers to the love G-d shows to the Jewish people. The honor of the bride refers to the love of the Jewish people for G-d. The marriage canopy represents calling forth the Essence [of G-d]. Before [going to] the marriage canopy the groom covers the bride with a veil thus establishing an external bond between the Mashpiah and the receiver. [However, this external bond is intended to bring about] a deeper bond.
Next »
Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES
1. [End of Chapter 16]
2. [Bereishis 1:26]
3. [Note Part III, 104b; Part I, 90b, 227b, 233b]
4. [Part III, 5a]
5. [Ibid. 1:27-28]
6. [Part II, 63b; 88a]
7. Shabbos 119a
8. Rashi
9. Ibid.
10. Part III, 272b
11. [4:5]
12. [Taanis 26b]
13. [Malachi 1:2]
14. [Tehillim 84:3]
15. [The words Mashpiah and Mekabel (giver and receiver) are used to describe many types of relationships. The root of the word Mashpiah is the word shefa, meaning flow or emanation. A Mashpiah is the source of flow, a bestower of energy, a giver of love, knowledge, blessing etc.]
Jewish Practice » Lifecycle Events » Marriage » The Wedding » Readings & Tools » Tools » Lecha Dodi (Chassidic Discourses) » Lechah Dodi, 5689
Chapter 1
From the writings & talks of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch
Share
PrintE-mail Discuss (0)Next »
Chapter 2 Lechah Dodi, 5689
לכה דודי תרפ״טּ
לכה דודי לקראת כלה פני נקבלה
“Come, my Beloved to meet the Bride; let us welcome the Shabbos” Behold the Shabbos is called both bride and queen as in the expression “the Shabbos queen.” [The above metaphors are related to a wedding. In that context] the groom is called a king, as mentioned in Pirkei d’R. Eliezer 1 “a groom is like a king,” and the bride is called a queen.
[The concept also finds its parallel in the spiritual realms] as the Torah 2 declares “Let us make man in our image after our likeness.” Man below [on the earthly plane] reflects the form and image of the Higher Man, i.e., the heavenly Sefiros. [In that realm, the quality of] Ze’er Anpin of Atzilus known by its initials as Z”A [which corresponds to G-d’s “emotional powers”] is called “the King” as explained concerning [the quotation from the Zohar 3]: “The image of each and every soul stood before the holy King” i.e. Z”A of Atzilus. The Sefirah of Malchus Royalty is called the queen.
The Zohar 4 comments “a king without a queen is neither a king, nor is he great.” The essential factor is the union of Z”un Z”A and Nukvah [the Kabbalistic term for Malchus. This is emphasized] by the Torah’s statement 5 “Male and female He created them. And G-d blessed them…” [There, too, the blessing came to them, not to one alone.]
[To return to the concept of Shabbos.] The Shabbos must be received with joy, for it is the source of all blessings, both heavenly and earthly. [The Zohar states 6] “all the days are blessed from the Shabbos.” The same applies to a bride; she must also be greeted [with joy] for she is the source of all the blessings of above.
The above expression לכה דודי לקראת כלה פני שבת נקבלה is used in the Kabbalas Shabbos prayers. Its source is the Talmud’s 7 [description of how the sages would prepare to greet the Shabbos]. R. Chaninah robed himself in nice clothing, 8 stood at sunset on Shabbos eve, and exclaimed, ‘Come and let us go forth to welcome the Shabbos queen.’ R. Yannai donned his robes (Shabbos clothing) on Shabbos eve and exclaimed, ‘Come, O bride, Come, O bride.’ (Because of his great love for the Shabbos, he would refer to it as his bride. 9) The Zohar 10 [also emphasizes the relationship between a bride and Shabbos. It] declares “On Shabbos, one must add on from the mundane to the holy in all matters: in one’s eating, drinking, clothing, and reclining. One must prepare a pleasant sleeping chamber with embroidered covers and pillows from [the best of] all that is found in his house, just as one would prepare a marriage chamber for a bride. For behold, Shabbos is a queen and a bride.” Just as the Shabbos is the source of all blessings, similarly, the rejoicing of the groom and bride and the greeting of them is the source of blessing.
[The above can be explained in terms of a quotation from Isaiah 11 :] “For upon all the glory shall there be a canopy.” [The word all implies at least] two aspects of honor the honor of the groom and the honor of the bride. G-d is [often referred to as] the groom and the Jewish people as His bride: as our sages 12 commented, “on the day of His wedding the day of the giving of the Torah.” Honor refers to an encompassing light [a revelation above our conscious powers]. The honor of the groom refers to G-d’s great love for the Jewish people, as it is written: 13 “I have loved you, said the L-rd.” The honor of the bride refers to the great love of the Jewish people for G-d, as it is written: 14 “My soul longs, indeed it faints [for the courts of the L-rd].” The marriage canopy represents a more general encompassment of the groom and bride.
[These spiritual qualities are mirrored in the marriage ceremony on the physical plane.] Many people come to greet the groom proceeding afterwards, together with the groom, to greet the bride. Then, the groom covers the bride with a veil and they go to the marriage canopy.
[Why is it necessary for the groom to cover the bride’s face?] In order for a Mekabel (receiver) to ascend and approach the level of the Mashpiah 15 (giver) it is first necessary for the Mashpiah to establish a connection, by connecting his external qualities with those of the receiver. Through this bond the receiver can elevate himself and approach the level of the Mashpiah, enabling him to receive the inner qualities of the Mashpiah.
Synopsis
This chapter explains that a groom and a bride can be compared to the heavenly Sefiros Z”A and Malchus. Greeting the bride is compared with receiving the Shabbos, which contains the blessings for all the days of the week. The honor of the groom refers to the love G-d shows to the Jewish people. The honor of the bride refers to the love of the Jewish people for G-d. The marriage canopy represents calling forth the Essence [of G-d]. Before [going to] the marriage canopy the groom covers the bride with a veil thus establishing an external bond between the Mashpiah and the receiver. [However, this external bond is intended to bring about] a deeper bond.
Next »
Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES
1. [End of Chapter 16]
2. [Bereishis 1:26]
3. [Note Part III, 104b; Part I, 90b, 227b, 233b]
4. [Part III, 5a]
5. [Ibid. 1:27-28]
6. [Part II, 63b; 88a]
7. Shabbos 119a
8. Rashi
9. Ibid.
10. Part III, 272b
11. [4:5]
12. [Taanis 26b]
13. [Malachi 1:2]
14. [Tehillim 84:3]
15. [The words Mashpiah and Mekabel (giver and receiver) are used to describe many types of relationships. The root of the word Mashpiah is the word shefa, meaning flow or emanation. A Mashpiah is the source of flow, a bestower of energy, a giver of love, knowledge, blessing etc.]
First Dispute Between Two Schools of Torah Thought (1st century CE)The difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel regarding the kindling of Chanukah lamps
First Dispute Between Two Schools of Torah Thought (1st century CE)
http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/7547/jewish/Shammai-Hillel-Houses-of.htm
The schools of Shammai and Hillel for the very first time disagreed regarding a case of Jewish law. This occurred around the turn of the 1st century. In the ensuing generations, the schools argued regarding many different laws, until the law was established according to the teachings of the "House of Hillel" -- with the exception of a few instances. According to tradition, following the arrival of the Moshiach the law will follow the rulings of the House of Shammai.
All throughout, the members of the two schools maintained friendly relations with each other.
Learning & Values » Texts & Writings » Contemporary Works » I Will Write It In Their Hearts
The difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel regarding the kindling of Chanukah lamps
From correspondence of the Lubavitcher Rebbe; translated by Eli Touger
Share
PrintE-mail Discuss (1)« Previous
Release Time Education Programs in Public Schools; Next »
A Rabbi’s privilege and responsibility The following letter was written to Rabbi Chayim Dovber Ginsburg, an active Rabbi in Vancouver, B.C.
[Beginning of Shvat, 5703]
In the margins of your last letter, you cited the statements of the tractate Sofrim (2:5) that the custom is to continue to add Chanukah lights [each night]. Two reasons are given for this:
a) one should always advance higher in holy matters and not regress,
b) this parallels the days which have already passed.
In the tractate of Shabbos (21b), by contrast, these two rationales are cited by Amoraim as differing views. The Nachalas Yaakov, in his commentary to the tractate of Sofrim (which is printed in the Talmud), notes this and states — without adding an explanation: “Here the Gemara [i.e., in Sofrim] accepts both rationales given in the Talmud [i.e., in Shabbos].”
It is possible to explain that since we are not able to decide in favor of either of the opinions mentioned, neither contradicts the other, and there is no practical difference between them; they are both equal and both should be considered. We have found more inclusive statements in the Talmud, even in places where the matter involves [a difference in] practice, as it is said (Berachos 59a,b et al.) “Therefore we will recite [the blessing] according to both views.”1 See also the interpretation of the Rashbam (Bava Basra 75a) regarding the statement: “I will make them according to both opinions.”
Since this subject has been mentioned, I would like to add something which applies to the rationales mentioned, [i.e., that the pattern parallels] the days which are coming or those which have already passed, or that one should continue and increase, or continue and decrease. [The difference between these opinions depends on the conception of whether] the Chanukah miracle grew greater each day or became less each day.
In the year the miracle took place, [the Jews] did not know for how many days the oil would last. Indeed, the commentaries have asked questions with regard to the opinions which explain that on the first day, they divided the oil into eight portions. Moreover, that thesis can be questioned based on the statements of Zevachim 88a which states that a sacred utensil consecrates its contents only when it is full. If its measure is lacking, it does not consecrate its contents.2
Similarly, a question can be raised based on Menachos 88b which states that when a lamp [of the Menorah] is extinguished [in the middle of the night], it is obvious [that it should be filled to capacity].3
Thus it is obvious that according to the perception of the observers, the greatness of the miracle increased every day. It was not until the following year, as our Sages (Shabbos, loc. cit.) state, that [the commemoration of the miracle] was established as the Chanukah festival. And at that time, it was already revealed that at the outset, on the first day, the oil that was found in the cruse had the potential to burn for eight days. On the second day, it had the potential to burn for seven days, and so on.
[On this basis, we can understand] the rationale of the School of Shammai which maintains that one should light as many lamps as the days which are coming. For by virtue of the miracle, the measure necessary for the lamps to shine for all the eight coming days was included in the quantity of oil. And from day to day, [the potential for] the miracle decreased.
The School of Hillel, in contrast, maintains that [the capacity for] a miracle present in the days which come is only a potential, and has not yet been expressed in actual fact. Therefore it is not appropriate to be stringent and require everyone to acknowledge a miracle [that is only on the level of potential]. For people at large [are affected] only by what they can actually see. To cite a parallel: Yoma 21a states: “The miracles that transpired outside [in the Beis HaMikdash] are mentioned; the miracles that transpired inside are not mentioned.”
Accordingly, [the School of Hillel] rules that [the number of lamps depends] on the days which have passed, how the miracle was actually expressed. This is particularly appropriate with regard to lighting [the Chanukah] lamps, for they were instituted to publicize the miracle to the public at large. From this perspective, the miracle grows greater from day to day.
The above explanation also illustrates that, [as is generally its pattern throughout the Talmud,] the School of Shammai is taking a more stringent position,4 while the School of Hillel is ruling leniently.
Using intellectual adroitness to expand the above, it can be explained that a difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel based on similar principles can be found in another source: In Uktzin (3:5), the Mishnah states: “When are fish susceptible to contract ritual impurity?5 The School of Shammai states: ‘Once they are caught.’” {At that time, in potential, it is as if they have already died. For they have already been separated from their source of life, and it is only a matter of time [until they die].} The School of Hillel, in contrast, maintains that [the fish do not become susceptible to ritual impurity] until they actually die.
To conclude: [These concepts can be applied within the context] of our ethical development and Divine service. Shabbos 31a states that the School of Shammai rules more stringently and the School of Hillel more leniently. Therefore when there is a person whose yetzer hara has contaminated his sanctuary,6 but who desires to [return and] find shelter under the wings of the Shechinah, according to the School of Shammai, the first and most fundamental step in Divine service is for him to “turn away from evil,”7 “And you shall obliterate evil from your midst.”8 And when a person begins his Divine service, the evil possesses its innate strength and much effort and light is necessary [to unseat it]. This effort is demanded from [each] person. Every day, however, the evil becomes less and the amount of light necessary on the first day is no longer required.
To cite an example of this: the bulls offered on the holiday of Sukkos. They were offered for the sake of the gentile nations of the world so that they will not cause the world to become desolate (Yalkut Shimoni, the conclusion of Parshas Pinchas), but instead will be transformed into positive [influences]. From day to day, the evil in them decreases and therefore, a lesser number of sacrifices are necessary.
{On this basis, it is understood that there is no contradiction between the rationale that the number of bulls offered on Sukkos continually decreases because they are being offered for the sake of the gentile nations (see Rashi, the conclusion of Parshas Pinchas, and the Chidushei Aggados [of the Maharsha on the passage] in Shabbos [21b], and our Sages’ statements in Sukkah 55b that the bulls are intended to atone for the nations.}
The School of Hillel, in contrast, maintains that a person’s first step must be to enter under the wings of the Shechinah even though evil still exists within him in its innate strength. He must begin his Divine service through “doing good,”9 performing service in matters of actual holiness. And then, “one mitzvah will lead to another,”10 as he advances higher in holy matters. Little by little, he will increase his strength as he continues to grow until he will acknowledge and give praise to His great name.11 Through this, he will wipe out the descendants of Amalek and then G-d’s Name will be great and complete (see Tosafos, entry ViOnim, Berachos 3a).
We would be happy to hear of your positive activities in the mission of Machne Israel and Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch. Certainly, you will write us of these from time to time; thanking you in advance, [and closing]
With the blessing “Immediately to teshuvah, immediately to Redemption,”
Rabbi Menachem Schneerson
Chairman of the Executive Committee
« Previous
Release Time Education Programs in Public Schools; Next »
A Rabbi’s privilege and responsibility FOOTNOTES
1. [That passage relates that two Sages mention opinions with regard to the version of a blessing, and the final decision is to incorporate both versions into the text of the blessing.]
2. [Thus if the lamps of the Menorah had not been filled with oil, the oil would not have been consecrated and would have been unfit for use for the mitzvah.]
3. [And thus certainly whenever one begins kindling the Menorah, its lamps should be filled to capacity.]
4. [For they are requiring a person to commemorate in practice something which existed only in potential.]
5. [I.e., when they are shifted from the category of living entities which cannot contract ritual impurity to that of foods which can.]
6. [The wording parallels the wording used by Shabbos 21a to describe the Greeks’ defilement of the Beis HaMikdash.]
7. [Cf. Tehillim 34:15.]
8. [Cf. Devarim 13:6, et al.]
9. [See above Letters No. 44 and 49.]
10. [Avos 4:2.]
11. [Cf. the VeAl HaNissim prayer recited on Chanukah (Siddur Tehillat HaShem, p.59).]
http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/7547/jewish/Shammai-Hillel-Houses-of.htm
The schools of Shammai and Hillel for the very first time disagreed regarding a case of Jewish law. This occurred around the turn of the 1st century. In the ensuing generations, the schools argued regarding many different laws, until the law was established according to the teachings of the "House of Hillel" -- with the exception of a few instances. According to tradition, following the arrival of the Moshiach the law will follow the rulings of the House of Shammai.
All throughout, the members of the two schools maintained friendly relations with each other.
Learning & Values » Texts & Writings » Contemporary Works » I Will Write It In Their Hearts
The difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel regarding the kindling of Chanukah lamps
From correspondence of the Lubavitcher Rebbe; translated by Eli Touger
Share
PrintE-mail Discuss (1)« Previous
Release Time Education Programs in Public Schools; Next »
A Rabbi’s privilege and responsibility The following letter was written to Rabbi Chayim Dovber Ginsburg, an active Rabbi in Vancouver, B.C.
[Beginning of Shvat, 5703]
In the margins of your last letter, you cited the statements of the tractate Sofrim (2:5) that the custom is to continue to add Chanukah lights [each night]. Two reasons are given for this:
a) one should always advance higher in holy matters and not regress,
b) this parallels the days which have already passed.
In the tractate of Shabbos (21b), by contrast, these two rationales are cited by Amoraim as differing views. The Nachalas Yaakov, in his commentary to the tractate of Sofrim (which is printed in the Talmud), notes this and states — without adding an explanation: “Here the Gemara [i.e., in Sofrim] accepts both rationales given in the Talmud [i.e., in Shabbos].”
It is possible to explain that since we are not able to decide in favor of either of the opinions mentioned, neither contradicts the other, and there is no practical difference between them; they are both equal and both should be considered. We have found more inclusive statements in the Talmud, even in places where the matter involves [a difference in] practice, as it is said (Berachos 59a,b et al.) “Therefore we will recite [the blessing] according to both views.”1 See also the interpretation of the Rashbam (Bava Basra 75a) regarding the statement: “I will make them according to both opinions.”
Since this subject has been mentioned, I would like to add something which applies to the rationales mentioned, [i.e., that the pattern parallels] the days which are coming or those which have already passed, or that one should continue and increase, or continue and decrease. [The difference between these opinions depends on the conception of whether] the Chanukah miracle grew greater each day or became less each day.
In the year the miracle took place, [the Jews] did not know for how many days the oil would last. Indeed, the commentaries have asked questions with regard to the opinions which explain that on the first day, they divided the oil into eight portions. Moreover, that thesis can be questioned based on the statements of Zevachim 88a which states that a sacred utensil consecrates its contents only when it is full. If its measure is lacking, it does not consecrate its contents.2
Similarly, a question can be raised based on Menachos 88b which states that when a lamp [of the Menorah] is extinguished [in the middle of the night], it is obvious [that it should be filled to capacity].3
Thus it is obvious that according to the perception of the observers, the greatness of the miracle increased every day. It was not until the following year, as our Sages (Shabbos, loc. cit.) state, that [the commemoration of the miracle] was established as the Chanukah festival. And at that time, it was already revealed that at the outset, on the first day, the oil that was found in the cruse had the potential to burn for eight days. On the second day, it had the potential to burn for seven days, and so on.
[On this basis, we can understand] the rationale of the School of Shammai which maintains that one should light as many lamps as the days which are coming. For by virtue of the miracle, the measure necessary for the lamps to shine for all the eight coming days was included in the quantity of oil. And from day to day, [the potential for] the miracle decreased.
The School of Hillel, in contrast, maintains that [the capacity for] a miracle present in the days which come is only a potential, and has not yet been expressed in actual fact. Therefore it is not appropriate to be stringent and require everyone to acknowledge a miracle [that is only on the level of potential]. For people at large [are affected] only by what they can actually see. To cite a parallel: Yoma 21a states: “The miracles that transpired outside [in the Beis HaMikdash] are mentioned; the miracles that transpired inside are not mentioned.”
Accordingly, [the School of Hillel] rules that [the number of lamps depends] on the days which have passed, how the miracle was actually expressed. This is particularly appropriate with regard to lighting [the Chanukah] lamps, for they were instituted to publicize the miracle to the public at large. From this perspective, the miracle grows greater from day to day.
The above explanation also illustrates that, [as is generally its pattern throughout the Talmud,] the School of Shammai is taking a more stringent position,4 while the School of Hillel is ruling leniently.
Using intellectual adroitness to expand the above, it can be explained that a difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel based on similar principles can be found in another source: In Uktzin (3:5), the Mishnah states: “When are fish susceptible to contract ritual impurity?5 The School of Shammai states: ‘Once they are caught.’” {At that time, in potential, it is as if they have already died. For they have already been separated from their source of life, and it is only a matter of time [until they die].} The School of Hillel, in contrast, maintains that [the fish do not become susceptible to ritual impurity] until they actually die.
To conclude: [These concepts can be applied within the context] of our ethical development and Divine service. Shabbos 31a states that the School of Shammai rules more stringently and the School of Hillel more leniently. Therefore when there is a person whose yetzer hara has contaminated his sanctuary,6 but who desires to [return and] find shelter under the wings of the Shechinah, according to the School of Shammai, the first and most fundamental step in Divine service is for him to “turn away from evil,”7 “And you shall obliterate evil from your midst.”8 And when a person begins his Divine service, the evil possesses its innate strength and much effort and light is necessary [to unseat it]. This effort is demanded from [each] person. Every day, however, the evil becomes less and the amount of light necessary on the first day is no longer required.
To cite an example of this: the bulls offered on the holiday of Sukkos. They were offered for the sake of the gentile nations of the world so that they will not cause the world to become desolate (Yalkut Shimoni, the conclusion of Parshas Pinchas), but instead will be transformed into positive [influences]. From day to day, the evil in them decreases and therefore, a lesser number of sacrifices are necessary.
{On this basis, it is understood that there is no contradiction between the rationale that the number of bulls offered on Sukkos continually decreases because they are being offered for the sake of the gentile nations (see Rashi, the conclusion of Parshas Pinchas, and the Chidushei Aggados [of the Maharsha on the passage] in Shabbos [21b], and our Sages’ statements in Sukkah 55b that the bulls are intended to atone for the nations.}
The School of Hillel, in contrast, maintains that a person’s first step must be to enter under the wings of the Shechinah even though evil still exists within him in its innate strength. He must begin his Divine service through “doing good,”9 performing service in matters of actual holiness. And then, “one mitzvah will lead to another,”10 as he advances higher in holy matters. Little by little, he will increase his strength as he continues to grow until he will acknowledge and give praise to His great name.11 Through this, he will wipe out the descendants of Amalek and then G-d’s Name will be great and complete (see Tosafos, entry ViOnim, Berachos 3a).
We would be happy to hear of your positive activities in the mission of Machne Israel and Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch. Certainly, you will write us of these from time to time; thanking you in advance, [and closing]
With the blessing “Immediately to teshuvah, immediately to Redemption,”
Rabbi Menachem Schneerson
Chairman of the Executive Committee
« Previous
Release Time Education Programs in Public Schools; Next »
A Rabbi’s privilege and responsibility FOOTNOTES
1. [That passage relates that two Sages mention opinions with regard to the version of a blessing, and the final decision is to incorporate both versions into the text of the blessing.]
2. [Thus if the lamps of the Menorah had not been filled with oil, the oil would not have been consecrated and would have been unfit for use for the mitzvah.]
3. [And thus certainly whenever one begins kindling the Menorah, its lamps should be filled to capacity.]
4. [For they are requiring a person to commemorate in practice something which existed only in potential.]
5. [I.e., when they are shifted from the category of living entities which cannot contract ritual impurity to that of foods which can.]
6. [The wording parallels the wording used by Shabbos 21a to describe the Greeks’ defilement of the Beis HaMikdash.]
7. [Cf. Tehillim 34:15.]
8. [Cf. Devarim 13:6, et al.]
9. [See above Letters No. 44 and 49.]
10. [Avos 4:2.]
11. [Cf. the VeAl HaNissim prayer recited on Chanukah (Siddur Tehillat HaShem, p.59).]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)