A "Shoalin VeDorshin" evening on the topics of Purim, Kfar Chabad

00:00 Speaker 1 I don’t think there are any special halachos this year, except that Taanis Esther is not on Purim but on Thursday; it was moved up to Thursday. It wasn’t moved to Friday because of Shabbos, so that we don’t enter Shabbos while fasting. As for machatzis hashekel, which we give on Taanis Esther, this year that will be on Thursday before Minchah. Regarding machatzis hashekel, which many people ask about, I just wanted to say what I heard, what I saw, and what I understand was also the Rebbe’s practice—how to give machatzis hashekel, because there is a lot of confusion about it. From what I saw and heard, I had a friend—I have a friend—Reb Berel Lipsker, who would always go in to the Rebbe with the machatzis hashekel that the Rebbe would give. The Rebbe would give for himself and for the Rebbetzin. The Rebbe would give three silver half-dollars, silver dollars. So it would seem that the custom is specifically to give silver half-dollars. A silver half-dollar contains silver of a certain weight, and the weight of a machatzis hashekel is about nine, nine and a half grams of silver. For pidyon haben, for example, they also try to use dollars, but not today’s half-dollars. Today’s are nickel. They use specifically half-dollars from before 1929, when the dollar itself contained that weight of silver, both the dollar and the half-dollar. So for pidyon haben you need a hundred, a hundred and six, a hundred and four grams of silver, and five. Others customarily use six silver dollars. The old dollars contain the weight of a hundred and six grams of silver. Likewise, three half-dollars contain the weight of machatzis

02:06 Speaker 1 hashekel. So apparently he would do it three times, with three halves. That is, three times nine and a half grams. That is also the practice in many shuls: the shul has these half-dollar coins, and people redeem them. That is, they buy them for a sum of money. How much? As is customary, from what I saw, you buy them for at least the value of the silver. Let’s say today it’s about nine and a half shekels—uh, the weight, the value, what nine grams of silver is worth according to the... The price of silver changes every day; it’s about nine and a half. So, in practice, someone giving it in shul should take nine and a half shekels, redeem those three coins, and put the three coins into the bowl. Some have the custom of putting them in three times. That is, the three coins, then taking them back and putting them in again and again, corresponding to nine halves. The Rebbe would do it three times—I haven’t clarified that—but he would give half-dollars. Why am I saying this? Because some people get confused and say you need to take three times nine, three times nine, in nine, in half-shekel coins. What is a half-shekel worth? You buy the three halves and give those three halves three times, and that way you also satisfy the opinion of those whose custom here in Eretz Yisroel is to give the value of machatzis hashekel. That is generally more the custom of Sephardim here, because some Ashkenazim in Eretz Yisroel would give half of the local coin. Today there’s a shekel, so half a shekel is called machatzis hashekel. But the Sephardic custom was specifically to give the value of the silver in a machatzis hashekel. So in any

04:06 Speaker 1 event, to satisfy all opinions, you can take those nine and a half shekels and make sure they include half-shekel coins. Then you buy the three silver coins with them and put the three coins into the bowl. That’s how it seems. What? What?

04:32 Speaker 2 Can you add more, or only up to thirty?

04:35 Speaker 1 There’s no prohibition against adding more. But what do we give? We give for every member of the family. The custom, as I heard was practiced among us, is also to give for pregnant women, including for the unborn child. Some have asked why... The Mishnah says that someone who has been giving—uh, someone who has been giving on another person’s behalf—should not stop. Some children have already married. I don’t know whether their father gave for them before bas mitzvah or bar mitzvah, and afterward they grew up. Perhaps there’s a special hiddur with machatzis hashekel that once you’ve begun giving, you shouldn’t stop. If they give on their own, all the better, but if you’ve already begun, continue. I’ll also get to Taanis Esther this year, since it has been moved from its usual date. The Alter Rebbe says in the laws of fasts, section 12, that Taanis Esther is a custom. In any event, especially since its date has been moved this year, there are grounds for leniency in certain circumstances—for example, for pregnant women, someone who is ill, and so on. In any case, each situation must be asked about on its own merits. What was mentioned here is the main subject I wanted to spend some time on and clarify the relevant halachos, because there’s a great deal of confusion, and these halachos were not clarified sufficiently in the Shulchan Aruch. Why? Because outside Eretz Yisroel this question did not arise very often. Let me explain the distinction between a walled city and an unwalled city. As it says in the Megillah, “Therefore the Jews of the unwalled towns” celebrate the fourteenth as “a day of joy, feasting, and Yom Tov.” An enactment was made that in walled cities—cities surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, as in Shushan the capital—Purim is on the fifteenth. In other words, Purim falls on two days: Purim in unwalled cities, the open cities, is on the fourteenth,

06:56 Speaker 1 while in Shushan the capital it was on the fifteenth. The Sages enacted that all cities surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun have the same status as Shushan the capital. Why did they specifically set the condition as the days of Yehoshua bin Nun? The Rambam says: to give honor to Eretz Yisroel, because its settled areas were neglected at that time. After all, the entire miracle, the whole community, was in Shushan the capital, while in Eretz Yisroel the building of the Beis Hamikdash had been halted. So that people would remember Eretz Yisroel and think of Eretz Yisroel, they made it depend on whether a city had been walled since the days of Yehoshua bin Nun. But the basis for it is what the Megillah says: in Shushan the capital, they celebrated Purim—Shushan Purim—on the fifteenth. Now, the Mishnah in Megillah, page 19, says that someone who goes from one place to another—someone who lives in an unwalled city is treated as a resident of an unwalled city, and someone who lives in a walled city as a resident of a walled city. I want to begin by saying that, in practice, the only walled city today where we know with certainty that Purim is celebrated on the fifteenth is Jerusalem. As for the other cities, even the ancient ones, their exact locations are uncertain. Of course, in Jaffa and Tiberias they observe it out of doubt; even in Tzfas some observe it out of doubt. But in any event, those are all cases of uncertainty. The city whose location and the location of its wall we really know—since it all surrounds the Beis Hamikdash—is Jerusalem. So the only place that is certainly a walled city, where Purim is celebrated on the fifteenth, is Jerusalem. That’s why I’ll always use Jerusalem as the example of a walled city. The rest of the country—Kfar Chabad, Tel Aviv, and Haifa—is in the other category. I mention Tel Aviv. Huh?

08:55 Speaker 3 Who?

08:56 Speaker 1 Why not?

08:57 Speaker 3 Unwalled cities.

08:59 Speaker 1 Unwalled cities.

09:00 Speaker 3 Yes, right.

09:04 Speaker 1 All right. Where’s Rabbi Bavli[unclear]? Huh? Where’s Rabbi Bavli[unclear]?

09:11 Speaker 3 Ah.

09:15 Speaker 1 That’s been the case since they established the yeshiva there. In any event, yes, about Haifa. We know the halachah says that when a person—incidentally, today is the ninth of [unclear][?]; there’s a whole discussion in Pesachim—when a resident of Eretz Yisroel goes abroad, or a resident of the Diaspora comes to Eretz Yisroel, and there are differences in halachah between the two places, he is subject to the stringencies of the place he came from. He also takes on the stringencies of the place he has come to. In other words, if, for example, he comes from abroad to Eretz Yisroel—and of course I’m not talking about the straightforward halachah, not what it says in the siddur—he still has the status of a resident of the Diaspora and must observe two days. Why? Because he came from abroad, so the stringencies of the place he came from still apply to him. The same applies to various prohibitive customs observed in one town but not another. When a person moves from place to place, he observes... the stringencies of the place he came from still apply to him. Why? Well, the shluchim. Since the shluchim arrived. So why? Especially since, although he is a resident of the Diaspora who has come to Eretz Yisroel, he intends to return abroad. Therefore, his status as a resident of the Diaspora has not fallen away, and he is subject both to the laws of a resident of Eretz Yisroel and to those of a resident of the Diaspora. On Purim, the rule changes. The halachah changes. Seemingly, the straightforward halachah is that there’s no such thing as someone coming from Kfar Chabad to Jerusalem, or from Jerusalem to Kfar Chabad, and having both statuses because he is a Jerusalem resident who observes Purim on the fifteenth—or, conversely, someone coming from Kfar Chabad to... and taking on the status of a Jerusalem resident as well. There’s no such thing. The verse cited in the Mishnah or Gemara. We say today in the Megillah: “Therefore the unwalled Jews who dwell in unwalled towns”—the unwalled Jews who dwell in

11:59 Speaker 1 unwalled towns. The Gemara asks: If it says “the unwalled Jews,” why does it need to add “who dwell in unwalled towns”? Rather, the verse comes to teach us that it isn’t enough for him simply to be an unwalled-town Jew. In other words, he is a Jerusalem resident. Baruch Hashem, we have people from Jerusalem in Kfar Chabad—but why are they from Jerusalem? Because they came from Jerusalem. That alone is still not enough; he must also be dwelling in Jerusalem. Or he is a Kfar Chabad resident who is also there—not only a Kfar Chabad resident who has now come to Jerusalem, but someone who is still a resident of... who is also in Kfar Chabad. That is what the verse means by “the unwalled Jews who dwell in unwalled towns.” In other words, on this Purim it depends on where they are dwelling, where they are. If he is in Kfar Chabad—or if a Kfar Chabad resident is in Jerusalem—his status is that of a Jerusalem resident. This halachah has therefore given rise to many doubts. In practice, in almost most cases there is no clear ruling. What do I mean by “no clear ruling”? Some halachic authorities rule one way, and others disagree. But there are several cases about which there is no dispute at all; everyone agrees on the halachah. For example, a Kfar Chabad resident travels to Jerusalem. Let’s say Purim falls on Sunday this year. When does a Jew from Kfar Chabad observe Purim? On Sunday. He travels to Jerusalem on Monday morning and stays there even for a full week, the whole following week. There is no question that none of the Jerusalem Purim laws apply to him. Why? Because he arrived in Jerusalem after dawn, and he has no status as a Jerusalem resident. When does he take on the status of a Jerusalem resident? If he arrived in Jerusalem—and this too is clear—before dawn on the fifteenth, then he also takes on the status of a Jerusalem resident. And that

14:15 Speaker 1 too, again, is not yet entirely clear. We’ll get to the various doubts involved. Why on earth? After all, with every... in every place, with every halachah. What? One moment, one moment—if only we get that far. Just a moment. Wait, wait, wait. Live long enough and secrets are revealed. Why did we bring up dawn? After all, for all the festivals, all the Jewish holidays, “and evening comes, and the kohen...” Evening is what determines when the festival begins. On Purim it changes—on Purim, everything is turned upside down. So everything, everything is reversed. Not night: dawn. Why? The Yerushalmi implies the reason. Why dawn of all times? Because the Gemara says the main reading is by day. The main reading of the Megillah is during the day. We read it at night too, but the main publicizing of the miracle is during the day. The Yerushalmi therefore establishes that what determines the change between Jerusalem and a place outside Jerusalem is dawn—not nightfall, as it usually is, but dawn. So if someone comes from Kfar Chabad to Jerusalem before dawn—even if, that is, he came at sunset, one might think he must be considered a Jerusalem resident. But even if he was still in Kfar Chabad at the beginning of the night and arrived in Jerusalem at midnight or one in the morning, then seemingly he must be considered a Jerusalem resident. The reverse is also true. A Jerusalem resident who comes to Kfar Chabad on Sunday morning is undoubtedly not obligated in anything there. Why? Because he arrived in the morning, after dawn.

16:16 Speaker 1 He does not take on any status as a Kfar Chabad resident. But what if he arrived in Kfar Chabad in the middle of the night? Certainly, if he arrived—say, in a year when it’s after Shabbos, he can arrive before sunset, before... But if it were a weekday and he arrived before sunset, he certainly becomes a Kfar Chabad resident. Yet even if he arrived after nightfall or in the middle of the night, if he arrived before dawn, he becomes a Kfar Chabad resident. That is what this means. That is what we said: someone who travels, someone who travels between Jerusalem... Let’s begin now. What? What’s the question?

17:04 Speaker 4 Is the dawn you mean on Sunday, or the dawn on Monday?

17:04 Speaker 1 I’m saying the opposite: a Jerusalem resident who comes at dawn after Shabbos. Well?

17:09 Speaker 4 He stays here on Shabbos until dawn in Jerusalem.

17:12 Speaker 1 Wait, wait. Again, again. I didn’t understand—what?

17:17 Speaker 4 One.

17:17 Speaker 1 That’s Sunday. Wait, we’ll get to that. The Yerushalmi gives a case in which a person would be exempt from Purim altogether. It also gives a case in which he would be obligated on both Purim days. Here is what the Yerushalmi tells us: [unclear], “A resident of a walled city who moves his residence to an unwalled town on the night of the fifteenth is exempt from both; a resident of an unwalled town who moves his residence to a walled city is obligated on both.” That is what it says in the Yerushalmi. Now, what does the Yerushalmi mean? Books and mountains of discussion have already been written about it. One says this, another says that. But at any rate, let’s understand the Yerushalmi’s basic principle. There is a case in which a person is exempt from Purim altogether, the Yerushalmi says, and a case in which he is obligated on both Purim days. Let’s begin to spell this out a little. A Jerusalem resident. What did we say? We’ve just established that dawn is the determining point. That’s the view of most halachic authorities: dawn determines everything. The only one who is stringent and holds that the evening also determines it... he lives here in Bnei Brak, and he is truly the only one of all the authorities for whom night also determines it.

18:47 Speaker 5 Can we move on to that?

18:48 Speaker 1 It all depends on dawn—dawn, dawn. For most halachic authorities, dawn is the determining point. A Jerusalem resident who comes on the night of the fourteenth to Kfar Chabad and plans to be here for the entire fourteenth: the straightforward, established halachah, stated in the Mishnah and Gemara, is that he takes on the status of a resident of an unwalled town. He has changed from a Jerusalem resident into a resident of an unwalled town, from a resident of a walled city into a resident of an unwalled town. That is straightforward. Where is there room for a question? We said that a Jerusalem resident who arrives before dawn takes on the status of a resident of an unwalled town. The question arises—but all this plainly refers to someone who remains afterward in Kfar Chabad. He remains in Kfar Chabad on the fourteenth as well. So [unclear] said: Although he is a Jerusalem resident, since... One might have thought that since he is a Jerusalem resident who came to Kfar Chabad, should he read the Megillah on the fourteenth? No. We say that someone in a walled city for one day is considered a resident of a walled city, and someone in an unwalled town for one day is considered a resident of an unwalled town. He takes on the status of a resident of an unwalled town. But what if this man returned to his city—this Jerusalem resident returned to his city on Sunday night? He was in Kfar Chabad all day Sunday and returned to Jerusalem. What is his status? Does he have to observe Purim again, or not? After all, we’ve already said that someone in an unwalled town for one day is considered a resident of an unwalled town, so he is one. What? So what?

21:24 Speaker 6 The day has already passed.

21:27 Speaker 1 Yes. But he returned to Jerusalem. So he returned. So what? He asks him—he looks to the rabbi and asks, “What do I need to do?” What? What?

21:40 Speaker 6 What happened in Kfar Chabad?

21:41 Speaker 1 What happened in Kfar Chabad? Rabbi Frank offered a new ruling: in his view, the person is obligated to read the Megillah. Why? He says: “Since he returned from Kfar Chabad to Jerusalem, and he is a Jerusalemite, he is considered a resident of a walled city—because he is a Jerusalemite.” Wait, we’ll get to that. Wait, wait, wait. There’s no doubt about it, he says, because he was... What? What? There? If he went to Kfar Chabad and returned to Jerusalem, then in his view he is obligated to read the Megillah. Although, strictly speaking, he says that we seemingly haven’t found such a thing as you mentioned earlier: he already observed Purim—two Purims. So he says this: That whole argument you made about two Purims applies only to someone whose status is temporary. In other words, if he is considered a resident of an unwalled city for one day or of a walled city for one day, then you could say he should observe the 14th. But here he observes Purim as a resident of a walled city because that is what he is all year. The only new obligation that arose was that, since he was there on the 14th, he acquired the status of a resident of an unwalled city for one day. What if he went to Jerusalem afterward? Leave that, leave that. That’s already a further doubt. Let’s first deal with the doubts, and then we’ll get to that further doubt. But why didn’t we say the obligation depends on the city? What? The obligation depends on the city. Even if he isn’t from Jerusalem. You know what, the obligation depends on the city. Fine. The verse says, “The Jews of the unwalled towns, who live in the unwalled cities.” That implies there is both the place and the person. And the Megillah makes it depend on both things,

24:12 Speaker 1 on the city and on the person. So how do the two fit together? Just a moment. In one of his responsa, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman raises an objection to Rabbi Frank’s argument. He says, if a person... That’s one of his objections. All right, I’ll go a little more in order, or this will get completely confusing. So that’s what we said. That’s one ruling. He says that if a person is a Jerusalemite, you can’t describe it as observing two Purims. In Kfar Chabad he observes Purim because, while there, he has the status of a resident of an unwalled city. But when he returns to Jerusalem, he’s a Jerusalemite. The main question people always ask me here concerns yeshiva students or families whose parents live in Jerusalem. They observe Purim in Kfar Chabad and then travel in the evening, after the Purim meal here, to Jerusalem. They go with their family and stay with relatives until the next day. It’s hard to travel back in the middle of the night with the children, so they stay until the next day. And that, in practice, is the main point of dispute here. Rabbi Tzvi Pesach’s view is what we said earlier: there is no such thing as two Purims. You observed Purim in Kfar Chabad—you observed Purim, and that’s it. You traveled with the whole family, but once you’ve had the status of a resident of an unwalled city, you don’t become a resident of a walled city. The first example we gave was someone who is a Jerusalemite. What? Yes, yes, that’s the case. That’s the case, and it’s the main question people ask here in Kfar Chabad: people travel from Kfar Chabad to Jerusalem after observing Purim here. They travel at night and stay there. If they return before dawn, there’s no problem at all. But if they stay until morning—even if they don’t stay for all of Purim, only until after dawn—huh? What? No, no, this is how Rabbi Frank ruled: there aren’t two

26:47 Speaker 1 Purims. Once you’ve observed one Purim, you aren’t obligated to observe the other. But what’s the distinction? It’s like the first example: it isn’t that he observed both. Why? What’s the explanation? Just a moment—what? Wait, what’s the explanation? Let’s look into it a little more deeply. He says this: That resident of Kfar Chabad observed Purim because he lives in Kfar Chabad, an unwalled place. Now you want to obligate him as a resident of a walled city for one day. He becomes a Jerusalemite for one day. There’s no such thing as becoming a Jerusalemite for one day after he has already observed Purim as a resident of an unwalled city. But in the reverse case, when you were a resident of an unwalled city for one day and observed Purim there, and then return home, you must now observe Purim, because that’s your home. What? You’ve returned to your usual status. Huh? Huh? Leave aside the student; that’s another matter. We’ll get to that too. Wait a moment. And that, in practice, is the point. Now what is Rabbi Shlomo Zalman’s objection to Rabbi Tzvi Pesach? Rabbi Shlomo Zalman argues as follows—and here we have to make a careful distinction. My feeling is that I’m about to decide the Shulchan Aruch is wrong about this, but in any case, he asks: Suppose a person is in Japan on Shabbos, in a place where the date line changes. Or Australia, where the date line changes. During Shabbos, on a flight, he crosses to the other side and arrives there on Sunday. Yes? And conversely, suppose it was Sunday where he was, and he arrives somewhere where it is Shabbos. If he first observed Shabbos in Australia and then arrived here, wouldn’t he have to observe Shabbos again? So you see the same thing in the Shulchan Aruch. What? It’s the same thing. This person’s status changed: first he was in Kfar Chabad, then he became a Jerusalemite. So why shouldn’t he observe both Purims?

28:55 Speaker 1 That’s the main difficulty. Because one of the points is, I think—[unclear]—here, here, he explains the reasoning.

29:00 Speaker 7 Even though they don’t reach Jerusalem.

29:01 Speaker 1 No, yes.

29:02 Speaker 7 Why wouldn’t it depend on the person?

29:03 Speaker 1 What? No, let’s say—that’s how I understand it. There it depends on the person, as he mentioned earlier. There it depends on the person, while here it depends on the place, the city. So we have to distinguish between them. But in any case, that reasoning seems sound. This ruling, that you don’t have to observe Purim again, makes things much easier, because otherwise people think they have to find a Megillah there. But when do you have to observe Purim twice? In other words, when a resident of Kfar Chabad goes to Jerusalem and does have to—does have to observe—

29:36 Speaker 7 If he didn’t observe it here.

29:38 Speaker 1 There’s no such case. What do you mean, he didn’t observe it here? He was a resident of Kfar Chabad.

29:41 Speaker 7 No, if he—he went to Mashki in...

29:43 Speaker 1 Mashki doesn’t determine it.

29:45 Speaker 7 No, I don’t remember.

29:46 Speaker 1 No, wait, wait, wait, wait. That’s another matter. Wait, wait. I brought it with me—I have the Yerushalmi here. The Yerushalmi says this. This is its wording.

00:00 Speaker 1 A resident of an unwalled city who moved his residence on the night of the fifteenth—a resident of an unwalled city who moved his residence on the night of the fifteenth is obligated in both places. A resident of a walled city who moved his residence on the night of the fourteenth is exempt in both places. A resident of an unwalled city who moved his residence on the night of the fifteenth is obligated in both places. He is obligated both as a resident of an unwalled city and as a resident of a walled city. A resident of an unwalled city who moved his residence—a resident of a walled city who moved his residence on the night of the fourteenth is exempt in both places. Let’s explain this a little. After all, this is the subject we discussed earlier. But according to the Yerushalmi, it comes out that he is obligated in both places. A resident of an unwalled city who moved his residence on the night of the fifteenth is obligated in both places. So that is not what we said earlier about someone from Kfar Chabad who traveled to Jerusalem: we said he does not become obligated again, because he has already observed Purim. So he argues that the meaning of the Yerushalmi lies in its wording. The Mishnah speaks of a resident of an unwalled city who goes to a walled city, and a resident of a walled city who goes to an unwalled city. That is also the wording throughout the Bavli. But here the Yerushalmi says, “a resident of an unwalled city who moved his residence.” In other words, this is not talking about a family that went to visit their parents—observed Purim here, then went to stay with their parents in Jerusalem for Purim in a walled city, and came back. It is talking about someone who moved his residence.

01:42 Speaker 2 He moved house. He went to live there.

01:45 Speaker 1 He moved house. He moved his residence. What does it mean to move his residence? That is not clear. But in any case, he argues that since the Yerushalmi changed its wording and said “moved his residence,” it implies more than simply going somewhere. Why? Because he moved his residence, it is as we said earlier: this is his place. This is now his city. So he is obligated in both places. But if he did not move his residence and merely went there, then he is not obligated both times. Why am I bringing this example of moving one’s residence? Because someone here mentioned yeshivah students. I once looked into this question of moving one’s residence, because the same wording also appears in the Shulchan Aruch, in the laws of Yom Tov, section 496, concerning the well-known question of the second day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora and a resident of Eretz Yisroel who goes abroad. Look at the wording there too: a resident of Eretz Yisroel who moved his residence abroad with his wife, even though he intends to return, is obligated to observe two days. Again, the wording is “moved his residence.” I searched the halachic authorities. In one responsum I saw someone explain that “moved his residence” means he wound up his affairs. Because the Alter Rebbe also says there, “even though he intends to return.” What does that mean? If he moved his residence, does that mean he does not intend to return to Eretz Yisroel? But it says he intends to return. The same applies here to a resident of a walled city who moved his residence to an unwalled city. It does not mean that he has no intention of returning. He intends to return, but he moved his residence. At that moment, he moved his residence. In other words, moving one’s residence is not measured by whether or not one intends to return here. Rather, the meaning

03:59 Speaker 1 seems to be that he moved his residence even though he intends to return—even if he traveled for just one day. He has no affairs here at the moment; he wound them up. Think of a person on his own who has nothing but what he carries with him. When he leaves, he leaves no ties behind. So whether he moved his residence is not measured by whether he intends to return. What follows from that?

04:23 Speaker 3 It says “his wife” there.

04:25 Speaker 1 Yes. The point is that even though he moved his residence with his wife, he still intended to return. So there is room to say the same about yeshivah students who travel: since they are here at the yeshivah and live here in the dormitory, and they do not give up their beds or their other things, but just travel to their parents in Jerusalem, there is room to say that even if they travel for the night of the fifteenth, they are not obligated in Purim a second time. That is how I always remember it with the rabbi. It seems to me that whenever these questions came up, that was the approach. But there is the opposite question, which we mentioned earlier. A resident of a village—a resident of a village who comes to a city. I mean a resident of an unwalled city who comes to a walled city. We said that he takes on the status of a walled-city resident: someone there for a day is considered a walled-city resident. What does it mean, “a resident of an unwalled city who comes to a walled city”? When did he come? There is a major dispute between Rashi and the Rosh. It is quite a dispute. Rashi understands that “a resident of an unwalled city who comes to a walled city” means that he came on the fourteenth. A resident of an unwalled city who comes to a walled city—sorry, the intent is that he came on the fifteenth. On the fifteenth. Why does Rashi say that? Because if it means that he came on the fourteenth and was in the walled city on the fourteenth, Rashi says—as the Rosh understands Rashi—that the fourteenth cannot make him a walled-city resident. Let’s think about it. We said that a person who goes from an unwalled city to a walled city for one day is considered a resident of the walled city. But that is when he comes on the day the Megillah is read. A Jew from Kfar Chabad arrived in Jerusalem on the fourteenth. Let’s think about that fourteenth. What is his status? Have any of Jerusalem’s laws taken effect for him, or not?

07:00 Speaker 4 Jerusalem has no relevant status that day.

07:02 Speaker 1 Nothing has taken effect yet. Right. The Rosh says that this is what Rashi means. Rashi says the fourteenth cannot determine anything. What determines it is the time when the Megillah is read, when it is Purim. But there it is not yet Purim. The fourteenth cannot determine anything. The Rosh disagrees with Rashi and says otherwise. The Rosh does not explain his reasoning, but for many, many years people have pointed to the Rosh and insisted that this is not so—that the fourteenth does determine one’s status. So let’s think about it this way. Someone from Kfar Chabad traveled to Jerusalem on Saturday night. He is in Jerusalem at daybreak and takes on the status of a Jerusalem resident. He already takes on that status. That is according to the Rosh. In practice, though, the halachah was not decided conclusively either way. Now suppose someone comes and asks: a person from Kfar Chabad traveled to Jerusalem on Saturday night and is within Jerusalem’s boundaries. What should he do now? Suddenly, on the night of the fifteenth, he wants to return to Kfar Chabad. What will his status be? What?

08:32 Speaker 5 He had a Mishnah.

08:32 Speaker 1 [unclear]. Did he stay, or did he linger?

08:36 Speaker 5 Because that

08:38 Speaker 1 The Raavad says—apparently following the Rosh’s approach—that this can happen. According to Rashi it is not possible at all, because the fourteenth determines nothing. But according to the Rosh, the fourteenth is what determines his status.

08:55 Speaker 5 Only the fourteenth?

08:56 Speaker 1 Just—just a moment. The fourteenth determines his status. So this person was in Jerusalem on the fourteenth, and on Sunday night he wants to go back with his family. He wants to go back with his family. If he goes back, then he will not have been obligated in Purim at all. The Raavad says we should advise this person to stay in Jerusalem, because if he does not stay there, he will be exempt from Purim altogether. Why should he lose out on Purim? The Raavad implies that if he really leaves Jerusalem, he will be exempt. Now we have an example of how someone can be exempt in both places, as the Yerushalmi says. Earlier we had the first example, where he is obligated in both places, [unclear]. And now we have an example where he is exempt in both places. According to Rashi, such a case would never arise. But according to the Rosh, it can.

10:07 Speaker 5 Why not?

10:08 Speaker 1 Hm? Hm?

10:11 Speaker 5 Why can’t it happen according to Rashi?

10:13 Speaker 1 Why? According to Rashi, the fourteenth determines nothing.

10:17 Speaker 5 All right, but he is in Jerusalem now.

10:18 Speaker 1 When? On the fourteenth it means nothing. He is still a Kfar Chabad resident.

10:22 Speaker 5 In Jerusalem.

10:23 Speaker 1 Yes. A person from Kfar Chabad. Let’s think this through. Someone from Kfar Chabad happened to travel to Jerusalem on Saturday night, and he plans to return home. He is a Kfar Chabad resident, but he is in Jerusalem. What must he do? The halachah, as all the authorities say, is that he must read the Megillah on the fourteenth. According to Rashi, he reads it in Jerusalem on the fourteenth. Because the fourteenth determines nothing, he remains a Kfar Chabad resident on the fourteenth. So he must read the Megillah in Jerusalem on the fourteenth. Now, if he has no one to read the Megillah for him except a Jerusalem resident, the Yerushalmi says that a resident of a walled city cannot fulfill the obligation on behalf of a resident of an unwalled city, because for him it is not Purim today.

11:16 Speaker 5 A Jerusalem kabbalist, right?

11:17 Speaker 1 In Jerusalem, they always accept it. Rabbi Gurevitch used to say that Jerusalem does not just follow Kabbalah—Jerusalem lives by Kabbalah. What?

11:31 Speaker 5 If he was in Jerusalem on the fourteenth.

11:34 Speaker 1 Then let him read it in Jerusalem.

11:36 Speaker 5 He was in Jerusalem on Shabbos.

11:39 Speaker 1 So? What?

11:44 Speaker 5 He was in Jerusalem on Shabbos.

11:47 Speaker 1 Already on Shabbos?

11:48 Speaker 5 He was in Jerusalem.

11:48 Speaker 1 Leave Shabbos aside, because Shabbos makes it even more complicated.

11:51 Speaker 5 But he would read on the fourteenth. He was there on the fourteenth.

11:56 Speaker 1 So?

11:56 Speaker 5 And the fourteenth began, and he read the Megillah.

11:59 Speaker 1 All right, nu. What is he? He’s from an unwalled town. He’s from Kfar Chabad.

12:03 Speaker 5 He is.

12:04 Speaker 1 Yes.

12:04 Speaker 5 If he lives in Jerusalem, to do, uh...

12:06 Speaker 1 When does he plan to return?

12:09 Speaker 5 On the fourteenth, during the day, he leaves for Kfar Chabad. He goes back.

12:14 Speaker 1 So that’s what I’m going to tell him. It comes out, then, that he has to read the Megillah—according to Rashi, he has to read the Megillah in Jerusalem.

12:20 Speaker 5 According to Rashi, a Jerusalem resident comes to Kfar Chabad.

12:26 Speaker 1 What?

12:27 Speaker 5 A Jerusalem resident arrived here in Kfar Chabad.

12:29 Speaker 1 No, at that point—Shabbos, presumably, it could be—

12:32 Speaker 5 Motzaei Shabbos.

12:32 Speaker 1 Motzaei Shabbos.

12:33 Speaker 5 But he was still in Kfar Chabad.

12:34 Speaker 1 When? On Sunday.

12:36 Speaker 5 On Sunday he traveled to Jerusalem.

12:37 Speaker 1 When? Someone from Kfar Chabad traveling—when?

12:39 Speaker 5 To Jerusalem, to Jerusalem. He arrived in Kfar Chabad during the day.

12:42 Speaker 1 Motzaei Shabbos.

12:43 Speaker 5 Yes.

12:44 Speaker 1 Nu.

12:45 Speaker 5 And from there he went to Kfar Chabad.

12:47 Speaker 1 Nu, so he already becomes a resident of an unwalled town for a day.

12:49 Speaker 5 What?

12:49 Speaker 1 That’s it—a resident of an unwalled town for a day. He becomes one for a day. Ask about the overnight stays. You know what Kfar Chabad needs.

13:01 Speaker 5 For us, that wasn’t relevant.

13:04 Speaker 1 So according to Rashi—but now another question arises.

13:08 Speaker 5 Rashi.

13:11 Speaker 1 That’s what it seems, that’s what it seems. But the poskim actually accepted the Rosh’s view. On that basis, seemingly not... According to Rashi, you’re right. What does the fourteenth have to do with it here? Why would the fourteenth count when they don’t read any Megillah then? Rather, as you said, it’s entirely relevant. But according to the Rosh, this whole matter isn’t relevant. Instead, he says that the fifteenth is what determines it. In other words, like this: according to the Rosh, if he’s a Jerusalem resident—if he’s a Jerusalem resident—uh, he’s from an unwalled town, and he comes on the fourteenth...

13:56 Speaker 5 To Jerusalem.

13:56 Speaker 1 To Jerusalem. So what?

14:00 Speaker 5 According to the Rosh, it’s permitted.

14:01 Speaker 1 According to the Rosh, what happens then? That exempts him. And if he now goes back, he’ll be exempt in both places. Yes, in both places.

14:13 Speaker 5 Is there a difference if it’s family,

14:16 Speaker 1 No, generally there is a practical difference. It’s the—an unwalled town and a walled city. What? Oh, dear. Now we’re just seeing what Rabbi Yosef and the Rabbi did for us by ruling on the halachah, and that was that. But when they didn’t rule on the halachah, didn’t settle it, then it’s one decree after another, pure and impure, and nobody... And all the fine distinctions. Rabbi Yosef cleared the path for us, showed us the way, and we have a settled halachah.

14:54 Speaker 5 We heard.

14:57 Speaker 1 Huh?

14:58 Speaker 5 We heard.

14:59 Speaker 1 What, what?

15:02 Speaker 5 We heard.

15:03 Speaker 1 Agrees with what?

15:06 Speaker 5 Before the halachic ruling, they were left out.

15:07 Speaker 1 Ah.

15:09 Speaker 5 I asked; I had a problem with the wagons. I don’t know how many days a week. There was no question. There was no question at all. I don’t know.

15:29 Speaker 1 I don’t know. So what? What’s the question? What’s the question?

15:36 Speaker 5 The allowance applies everywhere else, and there is an allowance.

15:42 Speaker 1 In any case, the whole discussion of the law of a walled city revolves around this point. There’s another opinion altogether, a third opinion among the early authorities: they understand “a resident of a walled city” here—whether he counts as being from a walled or an unwalled city—not as a matter of where he actually is, but of what he intended. This is someone who lived in an unwalled town and intended to be in a walled city, but then changed his mind and wanted to return that night. The question here is whether he counts as a resident of a walled city or not. So that must always be taken into account as well, since this whole issue also depends on intention. You see? So, to sum up, there are many more details, but these are the main uncertainties—the questions about what practical difference it makes. Now there’s another question: if someone comes for Shabbos, as happens this year, for three days, or stays in Jerusalem for more than one day, what is his status? Does that change anything or not? As we said earlier, his principal residence remains the same—his principal residence. So all the later authorities, all the rabbis, rule that “his principal residence” means that he moved from one place to another, even during the night, because dawn is what determines it. What difference does it make where he was during the night? But the one we mentioned, [unclear], holds exactly the opposite: twilight is what determines it, and everyone disagrees with him. They don’t understand his reasoning. But in any case, that’s what he said. In any case, what emerges in practice is that the cases where there is certainly no doubt are when he leaves after dawn, whether from here or from there; then, consequently, there isn’t the... What? A loss before the Megillah? In the shul or at home. Do they put up arks here in the shul? I don’t remember that being necessary. What

18:22 Speaker 1 I only want to say is that I was at the soup kitchen before. I had the privilege of seeing the Rebbe several times during the Megillah reading. I still remember when they used to take the Megillah upstairs. The crowd wasn’t so large then, and... I stood right next to the Rebbe, beside the table. I could almost even look into the Rebbe’s Megillah. The Rebbe would recite the brachos himself; he didn’t rely on the reader to fulfill his obligation. What I noticed was that the Rebbe would stamp his feet. I only saw that in 5724. That first year I was there, it was already downstairs in the zal. The Rebbe would stamp his feet at “Haman the Agagite” and at “Haman son of Hammedatha.” If I’m not mistaken, I think, in any case, that at “Haman son of Hammedatha” he stamped with his right foot, whereas at “Haman the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews” he stamped with his left foot. How many times did I count? He always stamped ten times. That was apparently corresponding to the ten sefiros. In any case, perhaps I’m mistaken; today, of course, everyone will say it was the other way around, or it wasn’t this way or that way. But that’s what I saw. May Hashem help us have a happy Purim, and... That’s not the question. [unclear] Motzaei Shabbos. [unclear] No, he doesn’t get to that. Huh? [unclear]—he’s particular about that. What happens on Motzaei Shabbos? Do they say the prayer, or do they actually say it, or do they remain and continue to... A break before, before Maariv. They say the brachah, show the prayer. They don’t take a break after Maariv. What? They don’t take a break after Maariv. What the Rabbi said was that the Rebbe ruled that way in practice. What is the Torah’s ruling in practice? Who is he? Did he read it? Huh? What’s your name, a learned man, a scholar. How do we rule in practice?

00:00 So what does it mean when the Gemara says that Seder Zeraim corresponds to emunah, faith? The Rebbe explains that the strength and depth of a Jew’s faith are not expressed in Kodashim, Taharos, or Seder Moed. There it is obvious—could it be otherwise? Can there be Shabbos without Hakadosh Boruch Hu? Can there be a festival without Hakadosh Boruch Hu? Can there be impurity and purity without Hakadosh Boruch Hu? That is not where the strength of a Jew’s faith comes to expression. It comes to expression precisely in things that, on the face of it, he does just like the other nations. Other nations sow, and he sows too. They perform the same actions. Nevertheless, a Jew’s sowing is entirely different from that of the other nations. The other nations rely on the laws of nature: they sow, the rain comes, and everything will be fine. Everything will proceed normally. They forget altogether that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is involved. A Jew knows that sowing in general, and certainly a Jew’s sowing, is not really a matter of nature, even when it appears natural. In truth, for a Jew there is no such thing as nature. Everything is Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The blessing he sees in his business, and in what he sows, depends on what Hakadosh Boruch Hu wills and on his connection with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. In other words, even when a Jew comes to sow—and this does not necessarily mean farming; it applies to every area, right?—even in seemingly material, everyday matters, a Jew connects them with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He does not see the laws of nature or the laws of the world in them; he sees Hakadosh Boruch Hu. So on the contrary,

01:45 it is precisely in Seder Zeraim that a Jew’s faith comes to expression with greater strength and depth. That is not the case with the other orders, where seeing faith is no novelty. Here we see the full force of faith much more clearly: it is expressed even in everyday matters, in everyday actions that non-Jews perform too. That is one stage. Then comes a deeper stage. A person might say: Fine, a Jew connects his affairs with Hakadosh Boruch Hu even in ordinary business and everyday matters. But what happens in a time of darkness? In a time of galus? After all, Hakadosh Boruch Hu created the darkness and the galus; Hakadosh Boruch Hu made it happen. It did not come about on its own. So seemingly that shows that, at such a time, the world and Hakadosh Boruch Hu are two separate things. Chassidus discusses this in connection with the spies, who came and argued that the Jewish people would not be able to conquer the Land. What did they mean? Did they not see all of Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s miracles? Did they not know about the Ten Plagues and the splitting of the sea? Did they not know everything that had happened—the manna, the water from Miriam’s well, and all the rest? Did they not see all those miracles? So why did they argue that the Jewish people could not conquer Eretz Yisroel? Rather, as explained in Chassidus, in Likkutei Torah and elsewhere, their argument was that, as it were, “the owner cannot remove his vessels from there.” What does that mean? In the desert, the way things operated was beyond nature; it was miraculous. Everything happened through miracles. Bread came as manna from heaven, water came from Miriam’s well, and so on. But when they enter

03:28 Eretz Yisroel, to have bread they will have to plow and sow. That means the Jewish people will be involved in natural activities. So the spies argued that things operate differently in Eretz Yisroel. There, things operate according to nature, not through miracles. If things operate differently in Eretz Yisroel, then to win a war you have to weigh the relative strength of the two sides. If there is a chance of winning according to nature, you win; and if there is no chance according to nature, you do not win. That is why the spies said that in Eretz Yisroel, where there was no natural chance of victory, they would not be able to win. “The owner cannot remove his vessels from there,” because things operate according to nature. Now a Jew could take this argument even further and say that when we are in a state of darkness, galus, and concealment, the rules are entirely different. Here it is no longer connected with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Since we are in darkness, and Hakadosh Boruch Hu brought it about, allowed it, or directed events so that we would be in darkness and galus, it follows that in such a place different rules apply: things run according to the laws of the world. Purim comes and tells us that even in such a situation, that is not so. “Therefore they called these days Purim, after the pur.” Pur expresses this idea. Pur is a word in the Persian language. It is not even a word in Lashon Hakodesh. And we are speaking of the situation we mentioned earlier, regarding why Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s name is not mentioned in the Megillah. Interestingly, Ibn Ezra says that the reason Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s name is not mentioned in the Megillah is that the sages of Persia—the sages of Media and Persia—also wrote accounts of the events of those days. Since they worshipped idols,

05:21 if Mordechai had mentioned Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s name in the Megillah, then in their translation, instead of mentioning Hakadosh Boruch Hu, they would have written the name of their idol. So, to prevent them from writing the name of their idol, Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s name was omitted from the Megillah. The Rebbe cites this in a footnote and discusses which came first: the Megillah Mordechai wrote, or what the sages of Persia wrote. Seemingly it was just the opposite. But in any event, the Rebbe says that ultimately we have to understand that this was by Divine Providence. However we explain it, and whatever the reason Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s name is not written, what emerges? We are speaking about a Jew in a place where the language is Persian, and where he cannot even mention Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s name. Why can he not mention it? Because if he does, it can immediately be interpreted as referring to idolatry, and they will use it for their idol worship. In other words, he is seemingly in such a dark place, a place of such obscurity and concealment. And there he faces a non-Jew in whom the idea that “Esav hates Yaakov” is openly expressed, someone capable of casting a pur, a lot, to decree, G-d forbid, the destruction of the Jewish people. Nevertheless, he is told that even in such a situation—Purim, named after the pur, and a galus in which Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s name is not mentioned—even in such a place

06:49 of concealment within concealment, where the concealment is so great that it even seems to be the true reality, even in such a setting as the Megillah describes, you have to reveal Hakadosh Boruch Hu. That is what actually happened, as we read in the story of the Megillah. There is a well-known sicha that the Rebbe gives in several places: when the decree against the Jewish people was issued, on the one hand it was the harshest possible decree, seemingly at a time when, naturally and diplomatically, the Jewish people were in the best possible position. The Rebbe elaborates on this in one of his sichos. Such a harsh decree was issued against the Jewish people because Achashverosh ruled the whole world, and he wanted to destroy all the Jews in a single day. He wanted to destroy them all, “from young to old, children and women,” so there was nowhere to flee. There was no one who could escape—unlike Pharaoh, who decreed against the males but not the females, and so on. In other words, on the one hand, we see that Mordechai was one of the royal officials, Esther was the queen, and Mordechai had saved the king. Yet it was precisely at a time when, seemingly, the Jewish people had the strongest means, according to nature, to work to prevent the decree, or at least to annul it, that the harshest decree against them was issued. And then what do we see in the Megillah? What did the Jewish people do? Seemingly, they should have sent Esther, the king’s wife, to him immediately. No. First came the whole matter of “Fast for me,” three days of fasting, sackcloth and ashes, and doing teshuvah for having enjoyed the feast of that wicked man. Only afterward—although Esther too had fasted for three days, and as the Rebbe says, seemingly she should have entered Achashverosh’s presence without being summoned

08:28 And her entire strength lay in finding favor in his eyes. When you fast for three days, naturally that detracts from your appearance. Yet they did not ask questions or engage in all these elaborate arguments. The first thing they did was return in teshuvah. Because a Jew knows that even when he is dealing with Achashverosh, even when he is dealing with Haman the wicked, things do not simply run according to nature. The root—everything has a root, and for everything we have to seek its spiritual root. When we correct the spiritual root, we succeed in the natural course of things too. And even if, in the natural course of things, the means we use are—perhaps we do need to make a vessel within nature. Except in certain cases, we need to make a vessel within nature. But if we focus on what matters most, then even if the vessel is a little less polished, not quite gold, perhaps sometimes it can even be a better vessel. That is not the main thing. The vessel is not the main thing; the root of the matter is. The spiritual root is that an opening should be granted from Above to nullify the decree. So just as this was true of the Jewish people as a whole—we saw that even in a situation like that, dealing with Haman and with the entire spiritual state of that time, they nevertheless understood that things do not operate according to nature, and that first they had to seek the spiritual aspect of the matter, its spiritual root—so too the Megillah teaches us this, as we said earlier. That is how all these elements come together. Purim, which represents the decree and is a Persian word. You are in a place where you cannot mention the name of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, and even in such a place a Jew must know that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is present, and everything is directed by Hakadosh Boruch Hu. So he must bring the Megillah—from the word gilui, revelation—to reveal

10:06 Hakadosh Boruch Hu in that place too. How do we do that? This connects to another point brought up often in the maamarim on Purim. There is also a sicha from the Rebbe about it. I will explain just one point from it, concerning the verse in the Megillah: “On that night the king’s sleep was disturbed.” The Maharil writes that when we reach this passage, we should raise our voice. Why raise our voice? Because “on that night” marks the beginning of the miracle’s full force. So to signify this, we raise our voice when we begin reading, “On that night the king’s sleep was disturbed.” Regarding “on that night,” Chassidus explains that night represents darkness, while day represents revelation and light. “And G-d called the light day.” Night represents darkness: “And the darkness He called night.” The same applies to the word “he.” There are two words: “he” and “this.” “This” represents revelation. You point with your finger and say, “This.” Here it is. In other words, the thing is present here, revealed here, right before us. When you say “he,” who is that person? He is not here now. You cannot point to him. He is not present. In other words, he is hidden. He is not before us; he is concealed from us. So “he” represents concealment, unlike “this,” which represents revelation. Likewise, night represents concealment and darkness, unlike day, which represents revelation. The verse says, “On that night.” Here too, then, we see a double darkness. Concealment within concealment, as we said earlier in the name of the Baal Shem Tov. What does “double” mean? That the darkness is so great it even seems to be light. You do not realize at all that it is darkness.

11:53 It actually looks like light to you. So along comes the verse and says, “On that night the king’s sleep was disturbed.” What does it mean that the king’s sleep was disturbed? There are two interpretations, and they are connected. The sleep of the King of the universe, Hakadosh Boruch Hu, was disturbed, to the point that this was expressed in the literal meaning as well: “On that night the king’s sleep was disturbed,” referring to Achashverosh. What does this mean? That even “on that night,” in the deepest darkness and concealment, it is possible to bring about the disturbance of the King’s sleep, to draw down Hakadosh Boruch Hu. And on this very point, the Rebbe makes two very interesting observations. He says: We know that when we reach the passage “On that night,” we raise our voice. When a person raises his voice, it both signifies and accomplishes two things. First, what does it mean when a person raises his voice? It means the matter touches him deep within. When he speaks quietly and calmly, it shows that sometimes the words only reach as far as his buttons, and no further. Sometimes the matter does not affect him so deeply. But when a person speaks with all his strength, with enthusiasm and vitality, because it matters to him, and sometimes he shouts—why does he shout? Because it matters to him. As the Rebbe would always say, when something hurts, you cry out. You do not calculate whether it will help or not. Crying out and speaking loudly show that the matter touches his innermost being, a deep point within him. It reaches his depths. And as a result, when he speaks loudly, his voice reaches further. The louder a person speaks, the more even people at a greater distance can hear him. If he speaks more

13:35 quietly, some people will not be able to hear. So a raised voice signifies two things. First, that the words come from a deep, inner place; and second, that they can reach more distant and lower places. Here the Rebbe makes two points. First, the Rebbe asks: How do we really have the power to reach even a place of darkness, even a place of concealment? He makes a very interesting, precise observation. The verse says, “On that night the king’s sleep was disturbed.” What is the plain meaning of “On that night the king’s sleep was disturbed”? It does not mean that because the sleep of Hakadosh Boruch Hu was disturbed—to put it in simpler terms, because the light of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, a higher light, shone—the night ceased to be night. That is not what the verse says. It does not say that the night ceased to be night as a result of the revelation of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The verse says, “On that night the king’s sleep was disturbed.” In other words, the light of Hakadosh Boruch Hu—the King’s sleep being disturbed—had its effect even in a place of night, which remained night. The King’s disturbed sleep reached there; Hakadosh Boruch Hu reached there. This happened in the literal sense too, as we explained earlier regarding the two interpretations in the Midrash: because on that night the sleep of Hakadosh Boruch Hu was disturbed, this took effect and became clothed in nature, so that Achashverosh’s sleep was disturbed. Achashverosh was not nullified, removed, or killed. Achashverosh remained Achashverosh. He remained king, and the disturbance of Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s sleep was drawn down and clothed within the bounds of this world, until it brought about the disturbance of Achashverosh’s sleep. So “on that night the king’s sleep was disturbed” means that this takes effect and is drawn down into “on that night” itself. This is what the Rebbe explains here.

15:32 Wonderful. Let’s pause and pay attention. When we’re talking about the light of revelation, about the revelation of that light, about the light of day, then there is indeed light and a revelation of light, a Divine revelation—but it is measured and limited. And because it is measured and limited, there is a limit to how far it can shine, how far it can spread, and which places it can reach. By their nature, day and darkness, light and darkness, do not go together. Day and night do not go together. Where there is night, daylight is limited; it cannot reach there. For example, if a person speaks quietly—if we use the example of a voice—his voice cannot be heard, and what he says cannot be heard, in a distant place. Just as this is true in physical space, it is also true in the spiritual realm. When the light is restricted, there is certainly light, but it can illuminate only places that are receptive to light. It cannot reach places that are the opposite of light, places of darkness, of spiritual darkness. But when a person reaches the point of speaking loudly, what does that mean? It means he draws more deeply on something that matters to him. In other words, the spiritual flow being drawn down here comes from a higher level. An unlimited light is drawn down. Because this light is unlimited, nothing restricts it. It is not bound by any definition, so it can come and shine even in a place of darkness, even in that place of “on that night, the king’s sleep was disturbed.” That is one way of understanding it. But the Rebbe says here that the meaning is even deeper. I don’t want to go into this at length right now, but it relates to the sichos in general.

17:16 There are many sichos on the difference between drawing something down from above and elevating something from below. When a light shines, an unlimited light, one of its advantages is that it shines everywhere. It can shine even in a place of darkness, because it has no limitations. But still, in the end, how does it shine there? It can shine everywhere because it is unlimited. That does not mean it has transformed darkness into light. The darkness is nullified before the light. The light is so unlimited that it has the power to nullify darkness. Here we are saying that this is not the meaning. When we say, “On that night, the king’s sleep was disturbed,” we mean much more than that. We mean that “on that night” itself—that very night which until now was in a state of darkness—ceases to be darkness and begins to be light as a result of “the king’s sleep was disturbed.” How does that happen? Because an even higher radiance shines here. It is not only that unlimited light shines here; the light of Hashem’s Essence shines here. It is not bound by any definition, not even the definitions of concealment and revelation. You cannot say that it is present only in a place of revelation and cannot be present in a place of concealment. There is no definition of where it can be. So it can come and shine—and not merely shine. It comes and transforms the darkness, so that instead of being darkness, the darkness itself becomes light. That is the deeper meaning of “On that night, the king’s sleep was disturbed.” It is like the physical example we gave of a voice. Precisely because

18:55 a person wants to reach a distant place, he speaks more loudly. In other words, it is precisely the distant place that causes him to raise his voice. So too here: it is precisely the existence of “on that night,” of darkness and concealment, that, so to speak, brings about and draws down the revelation of Hashem’s Essence. It shines in the place of “the king’s sleep was disturbed,” in the place of “on that night,” until the darkness itself, instead of being darkness, becomes light. So now we can readily understand the two extremes we find in Purim. On the one hand, we say that Hashem’s name is not mentioned at all in the Megillah. One reason given for its absence is the concern that a name of an idol might be mentioned there—which seemingly represents the greatest darkness imaginable. On the other hand, Chassidus explains: Why is Hashem’s name not mentioned in the Megillah? Quite the opposite—because the light of Hashem that shines in the Megillah cannot be defined by a name at all. It cannot be contained in any letter, or even in the stroke of a letter—in anything. To refer to it by the letters yud, kei, vav would already be to define it. You cannot say that of it; even that cannot be said of it. In other words, a far higher light is drawn down here than the light drawn down on the other festivals and in Tanach in general, and therefore it cannot be defined in any way. So these are not simply two explanations. Rather, one depends on the other: precisely when we are in the place of “on that night,” a place where there is seemingly idolatry, the greatest darkness imaginable—how can “on that night” be transformed?

20:36 Only through the greatest radiance possible, which is above all names. That is why it is specifically about Purim that we are told its joy must reach the point of ad delo yada, beyond knowing. For precisely on Purim, when the truly unlimited shines, the festival is more exalted than all the other festivals. And may this, with Hashem’s help, serve as a preparation through these matters being realized in actual practice. May we join one Geulah to another, so that from the Geulah of Purim we merit the true and complete Geulah, when “night will shine like day.” What does “night will shine like day” mean? As explained in Chassidus, the night will remain night, and the night, as night, will be like day—it will be in a state of day. This can come about only through the revelation of Hashem’s Essence. May it be revealed speedily in our days through Moshiach Tzidkeinu.