Torah Review III

This week is the continuation of last week's:
19th of Tishrei, 5724 part 2

In chapter 16, marked as page 79, the Rebbe discusses the Posuk (Nechemiah 7,6) stating that when Ezra returned with the exiles they celebrated Sukkos as had not been celebrated since the time of Yehoshua. Since Sukkos had obviously been celebrated since then, this Possuk is explained in the Gemara to be referring to things other than Sukkos, and in the commentaries on Tanach to refer to the joy being greater than any since then.

The Rebbe takes the question a step further according to these commentaries: Why would there not have been a greater joy in the time of King David and Shlomo, when the Bais Hamikdosh was first built?

After first comparing these two eras to that of Baalei Teshuvah and Tzadikim, the Rebbe explains that the joy on becoming a Tzadik is not as great as that of becoming Baalei Teshuvah. This is evident in the fact that Pesach, the service of Hashem in the mode of Tzadikim, is not Zman Simchaseinu - Sukkos, the service of Teshuvah, is the time of greater joy.

In comparison, the time of Yehoshua was the time of Tzadikim - they had spent 40 years learning Torah in the desert, and the new generation had not challenged Hashem - [and perhaps that of Dovid and Shlomo Hamelech was as well, as they were all unified under one king and had external peace and it was the first time around for building the Bais Hamikdosh] while the time of Ezra was that of Baalei Teshuvah returning from Bavel to build the second Bais Hamikdosh. Therefore, the joy of this new Sukkos as Baalei Teshuvah coming to rebuild the Bais Hamikdosh was much greater.

You know, thinking of all this makes me miss Sukkos again - it's been a few weeks already. Missing Sukkos with the Rebbe - obviously as well.

Torah Review II

This week's selection is from 5724, 1964. It's the farbrengen for Sukkos, known as the Simchas Bais Hashoeva farbrengen, which was widely attended in those years by many young Yeshivah students from other groups, possibly because they were off from Yeshivah then and it was something Jewish, Torah'dik, Sukkos'dik and exciting to do. The Rebbe would gear his talks more towards them, although still uniquely his style and Chabad Chasidus.

It's the first section, the rest will be published in the weeks to come:
19th of Tishrei, 5724
You can listen along with the farbrengen here:
19th of Tishrei, 5724 audio
Don't mind the date of 17th Tishrei posted there, it is an error copied from the original archive on wlcc.org.
You can read in the original Yiddish as well, beginning on page 39:
19th of Tishrei, 5724 in Yiddish

The Yiddish seems to be a pretty much direct transcript as well, and is unique in that it carries the Maamar in the Yiddish transcript also. Usually, the Maamar is not included in the transcripts, and they only note that at this point a Maamar was said. The Maamar would (hopefully) be recorded separately in Hebrew. In fact, what happened is that some Maamarim were lost, either temporarily and are being restored now by Vaad Hanachos B'Lahak, or permanently.

This week is therefore not as unique, as it was previously available in its entirety. Nevertheless, there is always something unique in the Rebbe's Torah.

One of the concepts presented here is that Halachah and Torah change the physical reality of the world. In this case it is in the context of Simchas Bais Hashoeva being the ultimate expression of Simcha, part of which was instrumental music, yet the instruments could not be played until after the Yom Tov was over, until Chol Hamoed. Was the Simcha of the first day incomplete? Did the Anshei Knesses HaGedola, who instituted reciting the Brocha "Zman Simchaseinu" beginning the first night of Sukkos, also forbid the use of instruments on Yom Tov, thereby preventing this Simcha?

The Rebbe's response is that Torah changes the past as well. Just as the Teshuvah of the first half of Tishrei changes the state of the sinner so that intentional sins become actual merits, meaning that the past has changed to one in which you performed a Mitzvah as opposed to performing a sin, so too once you celebrate Simchas Bais Hashoevah with the proper instruments and reach the level of Simcha which is impossible at any other time, your first day of Sukkos retroactively becomes one of that same joy.

Similarly, although "there is no joy other than with meat" specifically of the korbonos, the korbonos were not brought until the first day of Yom Tov, meaning that there was not true joy on the first night of Sukkos when the meat was not available. Retroactively, once the meat is eaten and enjoyed, the first night attains that same joy and pleasure.

[An aside: this concept is discussed elsewhere by the Rebbe, based on the clear statement in the Gemara that the Sages determine the setting of the new month and therefore which day the holidays begin on, even if reality has to change to suit their determination. In this Sicha, the Rebbe brings other sources for this.]

You may question, what of the reality? We still must judge the one who repented to such a degree that it is as if he performed a Mitzvah - if he is guilty, he will still pay. We still remember that the joy our body felt was not as complete as now, when instruments play.

The Rebbe discusses this in the Maamar in regards to Mitzvos in general and those of Tishrei in particular, that now unfortunately only our soul feels this change in the fabric of reality. When Moshiach comes, our body will feel this change as well.

Torah Review

Since 1995, Vaad Hanachos B'Lahak has printed a new booklet of the Rebbe's Torah almost every week. At first it was a weekly Reshima, a note from the Rebbe's private journal, and when all of the Reshimos were published a farbrengen or maamar that has yet to be printed or sometimes yet to be found.

This week's Torah:
Shabbos Noach 5724

For Chasidim who eagerly await the coming of Moshiach for a simple reason, that they will be able to hear new Torah once again, this is a shot in the arm against the current Golus.

On page 20 (chapter 26), the Rebbe discusses the Halachah brought in the Gemara in continuation of the statement (Brochos 31a) that one should depart from a friend in the midst of a discussion of a Halachah. This is in the context of the many guests who had arrived to spend Tishrei with the Rebbe departing after that Shabbos.

The Halachah is, one Amora mentions to another that these palm trees of Bavel are said to have grown here since the time of Adam Harishon. The other Amora responds that this reminds him of a thought on the Posuk "that no man has settled in", that only the lands that Adam Harishon decreed should be settled have been.

Interesting Halachah, no? There are other attempts to find the Halachah within this story. The Rebbe presents his view, that this refers to the Psak Din of the Rambam (according to his clarifiers/commenters) that although a Lulav taken from a tree used for pagan worship (an Ashera) is forbidden, if this tree had originally been planted for pure reasons, and is now used for pure reasons, even if in between it was an Ashera, the Lulav is kosher. If the tree was planted as an Ashera, even if it is now used for purity, the Lulav will not be kosher. Hence the statement of the Amora that these palm trees had been standing since Adam Harishon, and were never used for Avoda Zara, as A"Z did not present itself until Enosh.

The Rebbe also mentions that the later Psak Din of the Magen Avraham and the Alter Rebbe is that there is no difference what it was planted for: it should never be used for Lulav if it was ever used as an Ashera, and if you do take a Lulav and use it you have fulfilled your obligation, whether it was planted as an Ashera or not.

What is interesting here is that they have included two answers that the primary recorder of the Rebbe's Torah (Reb Yoel Kahan) received from the Rebbe. Although his questions are not included, which makes it difficult to piece together the meaning, it seems that they may have asked how the Psak Din of the Alter Rebbe fits with the Rebbe's interpretation in the Gemara, for if there is no difference in Halachah as to why the tree was planted, there is no use in knowing if Adam planted it.

The reply of the Rebbe seem to be that although the Alter Rebbe may disagree in the practical, ultimate Halachah, he might still agree that Min HaTorah this tree is only okay for Lulav if it was not planted as an Ashera. The discussion in the Gemara would then be referring to the Halachic status of these palm trees Min Hatorah. The second reply is much more cryptic, and I cannot make out what it is referring to with any certainty. Please feel free to help me out!