Explanation of the Concept of Hiskashrus - Part 1

00:19 [unclear]. It begins with someone asking what his connection to me can be, since I do not know him by sight. He writes: “True connection comes through Torah study. When he studies my maamarim of Chassidus, reads the sichos, joins my friends among Anash and the students of the Temimim in their learning and farbrengens, and fulfills my request to say Tehillim and keep to the set times for study—that is the connection.” Okay? So there are several details here in this Hayom Yom. It begins, “Someone asks what his connection to me can be, since I do not know him by sight.” In other words, this is someone who wrote to the Frierdiker Rebbe. These are letters of the Frierdiker Rebbe that the Rebbe quotes in Hayom Yom. Someone asks the Frierdiker Rebbe because he wants to be connected to him. But “since I do not know him by sight”—meaning that he had not seen the Frierdiker Rebbe. The wording is interesting. It does not say that he does not know me; it says that I do not know him. Right? You might have expected, “since he does not know me by sight.” But the Frierdiker Rebbe’s wording is, “I do not know him by sight,” as though I, so to speak, do not know him by sight. So what? Because I do not know him by sight, he asks what the connection should consist of. Now, from the wording of the question—since the Rebbe quotes it in Hayom Yom—you could say, fine, that is just how the person asked it; who says we have to be precise about his question? But since the Rebbe included the wording of the question in Hayom Yom, the Rebbe could have... After all, this is not the entire letter. If you notice, there are dots here. Right? That means the Rebbe did not copy the whole letter verbatim. He quoted only part of it. The ellipsis shows that the Rebbe skipped part of the letter. So, in theory,

02:52 the Rebbe could simply have written, “Someone asks what his connection to me can be,” and stopped there. He adds the words “since I do not know him by sight.” In other words, he is emphasizing something particular here: the question of what the connection can be is not just a general question about connection. He adds that the question arises specifically because “I do not know him by sight.” And to that, the Rebbe gives him an answer. What do we see in the question itself? Its wording suggests something. In Chassidus, for example, we speak about two modes of serving Hashem: broadly speaking, service through hearing and service through seeing. We are talking about serving Hashem. We learned—those who studied the maamar for Parshas Shelach two weeks ago; they studied Shelach 5711 here in the yeshiva last week—that there the Rebbe explains how Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to bring the Jewish people to a state of seeing G-dliness. That was the whole matter of the spies. “[unclear]”—it was a matter of seeing. Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to bring about seeing G-dliness, but in practice he did not bring about that state of seeing. He did not merit to enter the Land, and what he brought about instead was hearing, because the main thing is in the mode of hearing: “And now, Yisroel, listen.” So in the maamarim that discuss this subject, it is clear that these are two modes of serving Hashem. Serving Hashem through seeing is a mode of certainty. He brings this up in Ve’atah Tetzaveh too. In the maamar Ve’atah Tetzaveh, he explains that the advantage of seeing is that it brings the strongest possible certainty. He cites the principle that a witness cannot become a judge, because of what he has seen. Seeing means that something is so certain, so clear, so real that it cannot be otherwise, and that is how

04:54 it is utterly clear. Hearing, by contrast, seems... Yes, hearing is more distant. Hearing means you hear something from another person. And hearing also has an advantage over seeing. Usually, with sight, you see everything as a whole; it gives you greater certainty, it is more immediate and stronger in its effect, but it is general. Hearing, by contrast, is more detailed. You hear each detail, each point on its own, and you go into the particulars more deeply. But at the end of the day, the drawback is that you have many details, all the intellectual particulars and everything else, but you lack the picture, the seeing, the certainty, the whole flow that comes with sight. That is how it is explained in Chassidus. Moshe wanted to bring about seeing, and here we are told that it came about through hearing. Now, when we speak about connection, there are also two aspects: a connection through hearing and a connection through seeing. In other words, in a chossid’s connection to a Rebbe, there is an aspect of hearing. You hear about a tzaddik, you have studied about him, you know about him, you know what he says. All of that is hearing, an intellectual grasp. Seeing, on the other hand, is direct. That is the straightforward meaning, also regarding a chossid’s connection to a Rebbe. When a chossid sees the Rebbe, he sees the Rebbe in person; he sees the tzaddik. Seeing has a much deeper inner effect than merely hearing about the tzaddik, studying about him, learning from him, and learning things. Just as there is a distinction between hearing and seeing in serving Hashem, so too there is a distinction between seeing and hearing in one’s connection to the tzaddik. According to this, it would follow that when you study Torah, you... hearing is not—it is

06:53 not seeing. And here, to my mind, is a very great insight, which is apparently why the Rebbe is precise in quoting the wording of the letter. The chossid who asks the Rebbe writes, “What is the connection, given that I do not know him by sight?” Right? In other words, the connection through seeing is missing here. “I do not know him by sight.” The element of seeing him in person is missing; seeing is missing. So how can there really be a connection? Apparently, the chossid’s concern is that he lacks the true connection that comes through seeing—a much deeper, more inward connection, a connection through sight. And to this the Frierdiker Rebbe replies: “True connection comes through Torah study.” In other words, there is apparently a very great insight here. If I understand it correctly, the Frierdiker Rebbe is answering that when you study the tzaddik’s Torah, it is possible to connect to him in a way that has the quality of seeing as well. There is something special about connecting through the tzaddik’s Torah that goes beyond hearing. At first, I would have said that Torah belongs to hearing: it involves understanding, effort, intellect. In Chassidus, we generally speak about a teacher imparting intellectual understanding to a student. That transmission of understanding is hearing. It is not the same thing. However deep hearing may go, it is external compared to what seeing can give. Here, though, he introduces a new idea: through studying the tzaddik’s teachings, it is possible to connect to him in a way that has the quality of seeing too. In other words, to receive

08:41 the advantage of a connection through seeing as well, which is a very great insight. When you study the teacher’s Torah, his maamarim, his sichos, it is possible for your connection to have the advantage of seeing too. What does that mean? How do we explain it? That is to say, the advantage of seeing can be present even in Torah study. And the Rebbe emphasizes that the primary connection is the true connection of Torah study. In other words, through Torah study you receive all these qualities. You have the advantage of hearing, which involves Torah and effort, but you also have the advantage of seeing. What is the explanation? There is a maamar of the Rebbe Rashab from 5672 that sheds some light on this. The Rebbe Rashab discusses an idea often explained in Chassidus. It appears in the series of maamarim from 5672, or in several maamarim; it is an idea found in a number of maamarim. Chassidus discusses the difference between transmitting an idea and transmitting a seminal drop. Those who studied the first maamar of 5659 will know this: there are two kinds of transmission. Both come from the mind. There is the understanding that a teacher gives a student, and there is the relationship of father and son, as distinct from teacher and student—the transmission of the seminal drop. What is the difference between them? Transmitting understanding is spiritual, while transmitting a seminal drop is physical. That is an external difference. What is the essential difference? The understanding a teacher gives a student is the teacher’s light. Transmitting understanding cannot give birth. It cannot create; it cannot bring a new being into existence. Intellect cannot create a being. That is why they quote the saying brought many times in Chassidus: “You cannot put a head on someone.” In other words, if the student

10:48 He has no faculties, no tools, no grasp of it. It won’t help for the teacher to speak to him from today until tomorrow. He has no tools. So when you impart an intellectual idea, you give him the light, an external light. If the student has the tools, he’ll receive it. If he doesn’t, he can’t. By contrast, when you impart a seed, you bring a child into being, and that child has a mind, all the tools and all the faculties. What’s more, the son’s strength can surpass the father’s. And as Chassidus explains, even that superiority comes from the father, because the father gives him his very essence, which is transmitted through the child’s own continuation, through the seed. So, generally, this is the point in Chassidus: imparting something belongs, first of all, to an external kind of influence. Imparting one’s essence is something else. The Rebbe Rashab says that there is a level at which a teacher imparts an intellectual idea to a student, and nevertheless he gives birth. In other words, it has the quality of imparting one’s essence. There is a way for a teacher to teach a student in which he puts his very essence into the Torah he teaches. He puts his essence into the Torah, and then his Torah, too, has the quality of an essential influence that can bring about a birth—that can cause the chossid to awaken as a new person. This is a tremendous innovation: there are great tzaddikim on a very high level who can put their essence into their Torah. Their Torah then has the quality of an essential influence, bringing a new person into being. Even if until now he had no tools and no faculties, he was

12:46 Through learning the tzaddik’s Torah, the tzaddik gives birth to him. He cites the teaching of our Sages: “A man walks about as an image”—that’s the wording there—“One should see the author of the teaching as though he were standing before him.” Right? I don’t remember the exact wording of our Sages just now. In any case, that is the idea here. When you learn the Torah of the author of the... What does it mean to see the author of the teaching as though he were standing before you? Why does that matter? Look, you’re learning the Torah—what difference does it make who said it? You can learn Gemara, a maamar, a sicha, some other book, anyone’s responsa. What is the point of seeing the author of the teaching as though he were standing before you? The point is that it brings about this birth. When you see the author of the teaching as though he were standing before you while you learn his Torah, you are not merely learning the tzaddik’s ideas. You are learning in a way that the tzaddik’s essence is present in the learning. That is what it means to see the author of the teaching as though he were standing before you. Then, when you learn his Torah, it has not only the quality of intellect, of understanding, of hearing; it also has the quality of birth and of imparting one’s essence. This is along the lines of what we find with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Tzaddikim resemble their Creator. As we say about Hakadosh Boruch Hu, “I have written and given My very self”: Hakadosh Boruch Hu put His essence into the Torah. Torah

14:40 is not only intellect; Torah is not only wisdom. Within Torah is “Anochi,” the Essence. We learn this in tonight’s maamar, “Anochi Hashem Elokecha,” [unclear], the maamar there, “Avos.” On the one hand, Torah is something defined: wisdom. On the other hand, “I was His delight”—within Torah are the innermost delights. Torah contains the Essence: “I have written and given My very self.” He put His very self into the Torah. In the same way, with Rebbes, with tzaddikim, a Rebbe puts his “Anochi” into his Torah. So this is something special. According to this, the innovation in today’s Hayom Yom is not merely that the Rebbe shlita gives you guidance—the chassidic Rebbe, or Hayom Yom, however you want to call it. You want to be connected? You know what? Learn this. Learn sichos and maamarim, and you’ll be connected. Right? It isn’t just mystical; it’s a practical question. A chossid comes and says, “I want hiskashrus.” He’s told, “Learn a maamar.” Right? There is something deeper here. It doesn’t mean: Fine, you want to be connected? Learn a maamar, and you’ve fulfilled your obligation. It’s required—you have to do it, just as you have to put on tefillin and do the work; you have to fulfill mitzvos to maintain the connection. By learning sichos and maamarim, you can mark it off—how do you say it? Put a check mark. Right? He... he’s a chossid. He learns; he goes and studies a set session of sichos. Right? He studies sichos regularly, so he’s connected. He studies the subject of Geulah and Moshiach, so he’s connected. The meaning here goes much deeper. It’s an inner matter. You want to bring about hiskashrus in the way of sight, and you lack the advantage of sight that is not... and so on. Through Torah

16:24 you can also have the advantage of sight—the advantage of sight that gives birth. Sorry, as brought there, the whole analogy of sight is that it has the power to bring about birth. It says in the sefarim—they bring the analogy of the dove—“Your eyes are doves.” Yes, the eye, seeing, brings about birth. Sight has tremendous power, especially with tzaddikim. That is the matter of the eyes. As is brought regarding Shir Hashirim, a tzaddik’s gaze has the power to bring about birth. The Frierdiker Rebbe discusses this at length in Likkutei Dibburim, at the beginning of the second volume in Yiddish. And in Hebrew, too, it’s at the beginning, I think. There is a wonderful sicha there in which the Rebbe says that when a tzaddik looks at a person, he makes something new of him. He transforms him, changes him, lifts him out of the depths and out of sorrow. A tzaddik’s gaze has an effect: it makes a new person of him, brings a new being into existence. Yes, because it has the advantage of sight, of course. So the Rebbe introduces something new here: through sight and Torah, you have that advantage. Today, too, when you learn a maamar of the Rebbe in a way that you see the author of the teaching as though he were standing before you, then through his Torah you can also have the advantage of hiskashrus, a connection to his very essence like that of sight. More generally, there is another thing the Rebbe cites on this subject. The Rebbe also cites Reb Nachman of Breslov, which is interesting. Reb Nachman of Breslov is generally not cited in this context, but there is another teaching the Rebbe cites in his name. It appears in one of the Rebbe’s letters from the early years, from the yuds, the chofs. He says: In Parshas Beshalach, during the war with Amalek, it says that Hakadosh Boruch Hu told Moshe—what is the wording of the verse? Ah, it says there

18:15 “Write this as a remembrance in a book, and place it in Yehoshua’s ears.” Hakadosh Boruch Hu told Moshe Rabbeinu to write the account of Amalek in a book, “and place it in Yehoshua’s ears.” What is this? Why these two things? “Write this as a remembrance in a book, and place it in Yehoshua’s ears”—what does it mean? So he writes that the meaning is that one thing isn’t enough. “Write this as a remembrance in a book” refers to the tzaddik’s Torah. Learning the tzaddik’s Torah is the “remembrance in a book”; it helps you fight Amalek and rid yourself of everything associated with Amalek. But that isn’t enough. Besides a remembrance in a book, there also has to be “place it in Yehoshua’s ears.” That means you need to travel to the tzaddik and hear the teaching from him. Reb Nachman says that a remembrance in a book—learning his Torah—is not enough; there must also be “place it in Yehoshua’s ears.” You have to come to the tzaddik and hear it from him. It’s interesting that the emphasis here is the reverse. There, the emphasis is on “place it in his ears,” on hearing: when you hear it from the tzaddik’s own mouth, it works differently. “Place it in Yehoshua’s ears.” The Rebbe cites this in the sicha. That is, Reb Nachman says it, and the Rebbe cites it. So the Rebbe says this is the source for traveling to a tzaddik. Yes, it is the source in the Torah for traveling to a Rebbe: you travel to the Rebbe because there you have “place it in Yehoshua’s ears”—you hear it. Here it’s hearing, but from today’s Hayom Yom we learn something further: when you learn his Torah, you can find the tzaddik himself. His essence is present there, and you also have the advantage of sight. And as brought... I was at a farbrengen, so I’ll simply tell you a story. Sight really is [unclear]. And as brought there, sight in its plain sense. So the Rebbe spoke about Re’eh, the idea of sight, and this

20:09 It was a very powerful farbrengen. The Rebbe spoke with great intensity about the plain meaning of this verse. The Rebbe spoke about this point: the main thing in serving Hashem, and in having an effect and an influence, is that it is not enough to hear and to learn. There also has to be seeing. “See”—“See, I...” It does not say “Hear.” Sorry. The Rebbe then said—and we will come to [unclear]—the Rebbe spoke about our generation as well, with regard to the Rebbe, the leader of our generation. Do you remember how the Rebbe cried out? The Rebbe spoke with tremendous passion. It is not enough—not enough—to learn the Torah and maamarim of the leader of our generation, to learn the Likkutei Sichos of the leader of our generation. That was the expression he used: Likkutei Sichos. It was unusual for the Rebbe to speak that way about... It is not enough to learn the Likkutei Sichos of the leader of our generation; there has to be “See.” What does “See” mean? You need to have an image of the Rebbe before your eyes. When you learn a sicha, when you learn Torah, the Rebbe’s likeness should be before your eyes. Then that learning will affect you not just like hearing, but like seeing: it will bring about a fundamental change in you. That is what the Rebbe spoke about at the farbrengen. So let us look at the sicha itself. It is a truly wonderful sicha. The Rebbe spoke about this word, “See.” Yes, the Rebbe cried out that there has to be seeing. I even remember that in the middle, the Rebbe said, “Ah, he claims he was born after 5710; he never saw the—” And suddenly the Rebbe began speaking about the Frierdiker Rebbe. On the one hand, he mentioned Likkutei Sichos; on the other hand, he said, “Bring it into your thoughts.” Yes, if he does not have a photograph, he can take a picture, and that will work too. It is interesting. In any case, that seems to be one point he makes. Now, another thing. We are talking

22:08 about Hayom Yom. It begins, “True hiskashrus is through the study of Torah.” It does not say, “True hiskashrus is through the study of Torah and...” It says, “True hiskashrus is through the study of Torah.” No, it is not speaking about Torah in general. Afterward it explains: when he studies my maamarim of Chassidus and reads the sichos. Yes. That is apparently one detail in the wording. Then there is another question here. We see the Talmudic expression: the beginning does not match the end, and the end does not match the beginning. It starts with “True hiskashrus is through the study of Torah”—it opens with Torah—and ends with other things: a farbrengen, Tehillim, carrying out requests. So at first you say, “True hiskashrus is through the study of Torah,” and then you mention other things. No, it does not mean only Torah; it also includes the established practices and the directives. So when you read Hayom Yom at face value, it seems to be speaking of several things. Hiskashrus to the Rebbe is not only through studying Torah. There is hiskashrus through studying Torah, and there is also hiskashrus through keeping the established practices. That is the whole meaning; it is explained this way in a number of places. In general, just as with Hakadosh Boruch Hu there are two ways of connecting—connection through Torah and connection through mitzvos. We have also learned recently in the maamarim about the difference between Torah and mitzvos. Torah is oneness, the concept of “one,” of “one day.” Mitzvos involve different shades; they involve distinctions. Torah has its advantage, and mitzvos have theirs. Each has its own role. The same applies with Rebbes: there are two things. There is the Rebbe’s Torah, and there are the Rebbe’s mitzvos—his instructions. What are the Rebbe’s mitzvos? They are the established practices, the campaigns, shlichus—all the things the Rebbe tells us to do as directives. Connect to both. Each has its own advantage. In mitzvos there is more bittul. In Torah there is a greater oneness, so

24:22 that is something different. That is the distinction between Torah and mitzvos. The same applies to the connection between a chossid and the Rebbe: both are needed. But here in Hayom Yom, you could say that this is its meaning too, yet the wording does not quite fit. It begins, “True hiskashrus is through the study of Torah,” as though that were the heading, the main statement, the point. Then it starts spelling that out and moves on to other things. I am analyzing the wording of Hayom Yom here. In other words, you can study Hayom Yom, read it quickly and hear something beautiful. Some people do not even read it; they hear it quickly and head out into the streets with that. But really, Hayom Yom is a book of the Frierdiker Rebbe’s teachings, as it says at the beginning of Hayom Yom. It is a very inward, very deep book. So perhaps we can say that the opening statement means that all these details are aspects of hiskashrus and its definition. There is a story I heard from Shmuel. You may have heard it too. Shmuel relates that when he was a bochur, he was with the Rebbe on Yud Shvat 5721. Throughout the farbrengen, the Rebbe spoke about hiskashrus. It was a farbrengen at which the Rebbe spoke a great deal about hiskashrus. In lengthy sichos, he explained the whole idea of connecting to a tzaddik. As he listened, Shmuel pictured his own hiskashrus and felt that something was lacking in his connection to the Rebbe. He said l’chaim, and the Rebbe looked at him. The Rebbe responded l’chaim and began a sicha. The sicha began with a passage the Rebbe read aloud: when a chossid thinks about the Rebbe, it is not simply that the chossid is thinking about the Rebbe. Rather, the Rebbe is thinking about the chossid, and that subsequently causes the chossid to think about the Rebbe. It is like looking: you gaze intently at someone. This is also written

26:42 in Hayom Yom. The Rebbe went on to speak about other aspects and details of hiskashrus, and Shmuel felt that the Rebbe was speaking to him. The next day there was yechidus for all the bochurim from Montreal. When he passed by the Rebbe, he asked, “How can I connect? What advice is there for becoming more connected?” The Rebbe told him, “It says in Tanya, chapter 5, that through Torah there is a wondrous union, unlike any other: the mind and what it understands become one. So through Torah there will be hiskashrus.” He asked the Rebbe, “What does the Rebbe study?” He understood this to mean that he should study the Torah the Rebbe studied. The Rebbe said, “Why do you need to know what to study? [unclear] Study what I study.” So he asked the Rebbe, “What does the Rebbe study?” The Rebbe told him, “I study Siddur.” There is a similar story with Rabbi Nissim. He asked the Rebbe for a bracha to go on shlichus, and the Rebbe told him, “Study what I study.” He asked what that was, and the Rebbe named a sefer he was studying. So he arranged to study that same sefer, the one he wanted. That was the story with Rabbi Nissim; but here [unclear] Chassidus. According to this, there is something about connecting through the study of Torah, not necessarily through studying my Torah. When you study Torah, since Torah brings about a wondrous union, and the Rebbe studies Torah and a chossid studies Torah, then when a chossid studies Torah because the Rebbe also studies Torah, that itself is the connection. Where does the hiskashrus take place? In studying Torah. Even when you study Gemara Bava Metzia or Gemara Gittin, what they teach on Shabbos—sorry, yes, Gemara—you study the sugya, you study a subject, but you are studying Torah. So your involvement becomes

28:49 With Torah study in general. According to this, the entire continuation of the Hayom Yom is speaking about that. It’s very interesting, because it speaks about studying Gemara, my maamarim of Chassidus—Torah that the Rebbe himself said. Then it speaks about the sichos, and after that it says: “He joins with Anash in their studies”—also study, but here it means participating in the Torah classes that Anash study, and in their farbrengens. At a farbrengen, too, they discuss matters of Torah. In other words, it’s all about Torah. “And he fulfills my request regarding the recitation of Tehillim and keeping the appointed study times.” Although here it is already a matter of a request, we can say that these, too, are matters connected with Torah: both Tehillim and the study times. The Frierdiker Rebbe asked that people recite Tehillim. Tehillim is also part of Torah; as is well known, reciting Tehillim fulfills the mitzvah of Torah study. And then there are the study times. What does “study times” mean? In the end, every detail is connected with Torah. Through these things, one maintains that hiskashrus. Everything is connected with Torah, but within Torah itself there are several ways: Torah study in general, my maamarim of Chassidus, my sichos, and the Torah classes in which one participates—the Torah classes among chassidim—which are another aspect of hiskashrus. Then there is the matter of study times, of maintaining a fixed study schedule. So in the end, everything is connected with Torah, because the main hiskashrus discussed here in the Hayom Yom—hiskashrus through Torah in a way of seeing—is primarily and specifically through Torah study. That is one possible way to explain it. If someone wants to offer a different interpretation or approach, they should know.