A study shiur in Likkutei Sichos volume 29, Shabbos Chazon

00:04 Speaker 1 So, the Rebbe wants us to study the laws and teachings concerning the Beis Hamikdash at this time. There’s a sicha here, a very interesting one, that deals with a fundamental question about the Beis Hamikdash. It’s also a question about the four fasts. It’s connected, too, to a subject we studied throughout the year, during seder daled, as we’ll see later. And the way the Rebbe explains its meaning in avodas Hashem is very interesting, very innovative. This connection between Geulah and Moshiach, the Beis Hamikdash, the four fasts, Chassidus, and avodas Hashem—inner work—is something very special. You could say this is one of the sichos that gives us a sense of the Rebbe’s perspective in the later period. It’s from the sichos of the later years, the 5740s, when the Rebbe was already preparing the world and the chassidim, directing everyone to enter the atmosphere of Moshiach. Many things, both in understanding and in avodah, took on what you might call a new dimension, a different perspective. The sicha is from Shabbos Chazon 5742 and 5744, mainly 5744. In other words, the main explanation is from the 5744 sicha. I remember it a little. I can’t even say I remember it in depth, but I remember it. It was among the first sichos from when I was already bar mitzvah, a bochur. In fact, that farbrengen was during the week of my bar mitzvah. The Rebbe explained Shabbos Chazon then. The Rebbe gave a very extensive explanation of the well-known parable, something he had a particular gift for explaining: the teaching of the Berdichever that on Shabbos Chazon, Hakadosh Boruch Hu shows every Jew the Beis Hamikdash. In the Berdichever’s parable, a father made a garment for his child, and the child ruined it. So he made him another garment, and the child ruined that one too. The third time,

02:56 Speaker 1 he made him a garment but didn’t give it to him. He only showed it to him from a distance and said, “When you correct your behavior, you’ll receive the garment.” So too, we damaged our first Beis Hamikdash, and the second one as well. Hakadosh Boruch Hu shows us the third Beis Hamikdash from a distance, and that is the meaning of Chazon—chazon in the sense of a vision. Hakadosh Boruch Hu shows us the Beis Hamikdash from a distance, and when we change our behavior until the change becomes second nature, we’ll receive the Beis Hamikdash. That, essentially, is the Berdichever’s teaching. Everyone knows it; they learn it in cheder, even in preschool. And the Rebbe had a particular gift for explaining it. That’s unusual, because it isn’t a Chabad teaching; it’s a teaching of the Berdichever. Nevertheless, it is also cited in Chabad Chassidus. Reb Hillel of Paritch quotes it in the name of the Berdichever. It isn’t quoted from the Rebbeim; it’s Reb Hillel quoting the Berdichever. The Rebbe once discussed why it was revealed specifically through Reb Hillel of Paritch in the Berdichever’s name. It’s quite... The Rebbe also explained why it was revealed in that way. In practice, this is one of the teachings the Rebbe developed into a whole body of discussion. The Rebbe offered explanations of it many times—each time another explanation, another point, another layer of depth. In this sicha, the Rebbe focuses on the garment. That’s the point the Rebbe addresses here. There are also at least four sichos in Likkutei Sichos on this subject, on this parable. Here, the Rebbe focuses on the question of the garment. The simple question the Rebbe asks is: Why does the Berdichever’s parable use

05:02 Speaker 1 a garment? Seemingly, it should have used a house to illustrate the same idea. Instead of a garment, it should have used a house. After all, the Beis Hamikdash is a house, not a garment. A parable should always resemble what it illustrates as closely as possible. So he could have said that a father who loved his child very much built him a house, or a room, or something like that. In America today, it’s common for every child to have a room. The Rebbe didn’t say that; I’m saying it. In any case, the father built his child a room and gave it to him, and the child wrecked the room. Then he renovated it, and the child wrecked it again. The third time, the father tells the child, “I’ll prepare the room, but you won’t use it. You’ll get it once you behave properly.” It’s the same parable, just with a house, which fits the subject better. That’s essentially the question in the sicha. And the explanation is wonderful. Yes, it’s an interesting question about a parable. But on this sicha the Rebbe builds a profound foundation for the whole subject: as we said, the four fasts, the days of Moshiach, the revelations of the Alter Rebbe, and how all this... why this particular parable matters to what it illustrates—how we, His children, must change our behavior during galus until the change becomes second nature. In short, that’s where this is going. So how should we do this? Shall we learn the sicha inside and go straight to the point? What do you say? I think we should go further. Okay, you’ve already listened to that whole introduction. Anyway, what shall we do? Huh? Besides, I want to learn it in Yiddish. Yes. Huh? What, translate it? What do we do? What’s the usual way? I’m just not used to teaching sichos. I don’t know how it works.

07:12 Speaker 2 Read it aloud.

07:13 Speaker 1 Huh?

07:13 Speaker 2 Read it aloud and [unclear].

07:15 Speaker 1 Read it and translate it, and quickly. Well? It is known that Reb Hillel of Paritch quotes the Rav of Berdichev as saying that on Shabbos Chazon, every Jew is shown the Beis Hamikdash. [unclear] It is known that Reb Hillel of Paritch quotes the Berdichever. So why is it called Shabbos Chazon? Because then every Jew is shown the Beis Hamikdash from a distance. Now, the simple explanation is clear: Shabbos is called Shabbos Chazon because of the haftorah. Why is this Shabbos called Shabbos Chazon in the plain sense? Because of the haftorah. It’s the Shabbos that falls close to Tisha B’Av, and that is the customary haftorah: “The vision of Yeshayahu.” The haftorah begins with the word chazon. This is the third Shabbos of the three haftorahs of calamity. That is, as we get closer to Tisha B’Av, the calamity becomes more pronounced. When Tisha B’Av falls on Shabbos—[unclear]—on Shabbos itself there are no visible practices of mourning, only matters observed in private. So when Shabbos falls on the eve of Tisha B’Av, as it does this year, or on Tisha B’Av itself, there are various matters that apply in private. [unclear] In other words, on Shabbos Chazon we don’t actually see this—that every Jew is shown the Beis Hamikdash. [unclear] Its connection to Tisha B’Av is even stronger when Tisha B’Av falls on Shabbos, as it does [unclear]. And when Shabbos Chazon itself falls on Tisha B’Av, the connection is stronger still than when Shabbos does not fall on Tisha B’Av. This year it falls on the eve of Tisha B’Av, so it too is a Shabbos with a special connection

09:14 Speaker 1 to Tisha B’Av. All right, so on Shabbos Chazon we don’t actually see it, even though every Jew is shown the Beis Hamikdash. Well, what good does that do? They show us the Beis Hamikdash, but nobody sees it. Did you see the Beis Hamikdash in your room? People would ask each other, “Did you dream about it? When did you see the Beis Hamikdash?” Some children would lie, and some didn’t have the sense to lie. Incidentally, [unclear], this isn’t only for tzaddikim, or only for great tzaddikim. The Berdichever never said it is shown only to tzaddikim. No, it is shown to everyone. In fact, he says that everyone sees it. So what does that mean? We don’t see it. The Rebbe explains what this means in simple terms. The Berdichever means that we are shown the Beis Hamikdash in a manner similar to what the Gemara says about Daniel. Notice the wording: “in a manner similar to.” There is also a sicha in Likkutei Sichos about this account, and there the Rebbe says it isn’t exactly the same. There’s a difference between what happened to Daniel and what happens here. That’s why the Rebbe says “in a manner similar to”: it resembles it, but isn’t quite the same. What does it say about Daniel? “I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, while the men who were with me did not see the vision; nevertheless, a great fear fell upon them, and they fled to hide.” You know the account of Daniel. Angels came, and they were there in the room. Their presence struck such fear into the others that they ran away and hid, even though they didn’t see anything. Daniel saw the angels.

11:03 Speaker 1 who had come, but all the men were with him. They saw nothing, yet they became frightened. And the Gemara says—yes, this is what the Gemara brings here. The Gemara asks: “If they did not see, why were they frightened?” Seemingly, why were they frightened if they saw nothing? The Gemara answers: “Although they did not see, their mazal saw.” The Gemara says their mazal saw. True, they did not see it physically, but their mazal was above. Something spiritual saw it, and that affected their reality down here. That does not mean that the people with Daniel became frightened because Daniel told them what he had seen. No. Their mazal saw. Daniel did not have to tell them anything. They sensed something in their mazal. There was a seeing by their spiritual mazal, and that affected them down here. Through the vision seen by their mazal, a great trembling and fear fell upon them. And that too has an effect down here: although they themselves did not see, what their mazal saw above affected them down here. It acted upon them. The same idea is brought in our discussion. The same applies to what we are talking about here. The sight of the Beis Hamikdash on Shabbos Chazon is not something we see with our eyes, but that does not mean that the tzaddik of Berditchev saw it and told us about it, as though we received the account from someone else. No. The wording quoted above is “they show”—and in the wording about the vision, they show it to each and every person, as the Berditchever said. It is a form of seeing: “their mazal saw.” It is not

12:56 Speaker 1 that they show it directly; they show it to their mazal. Their mazal sees it, and that—the soul—acts upon the person, upon the person’s body and soul. It affects the person down here as well, in body and soul. So, as we said, in this sicha the Rebbe compares seeing the Beis Hamikdash to “their mazal saw.” What does “their mazal saw” mean? I do not see or know, but something in my mazal, the soul above, sees the truth, sees something, and that affects the soul below. The same applies here. The soul above sees the Beis Hamikdash on Shabbos Chazon, and that has an effect down here: one’s conduct improves, and so on. But, as we said, that is only a comparison. Look at footnote twelve. The Rebbe points out that Likkutei Sichos explains that it is not merely that. It is much more than that, much more inward. Look it up in Likkutei Sichos. The Rebbe explains there that the whole purpose of seeing the Beis Hamikdash is to affect a person’s conduct, to bring about change. It is like the parable of the father who shows his child a garment. Why does he show him the garment? Because he wants the child’s conduct to change. Likewise, the whole point of seeing the Beis Hamikdash is to bring about a change in a Jew’s conduct, so that serving Hashem becomes second nature to him. If it were only a matter of “their mazal saw,” it would remain makif—an influence surrounding him from above—and could not accomplish that. The goal is for it to enter the person’s conduct and become second nature. So it cannot remain only makif; it has to be internalized, as discussed in the maamar about the Tree of Life. There are things that come from above and remain makif,

14:49 Speaker 1 like faith and so on. But a vision from above needs to be internalized. So the Rebbe says that here it is much more inward. In other words, yes, they show a person the Beis Hamikdash, but they show it in a way that affects him and makes him want to change. The Rebbe explains the precise wording, “they show it from afar.” What is the significance of “they show”? It is all in that sicha; we need to study it. It is a very foundational sicha in Chassidus. So, “they show it from afar.” What is the significance of “from afar”? It gives a person a feeling of thirst. When something is distant, that very distance awakens longing and thirst in a person. That is what “they show it from afar” accomplishes. In other words, there is a kind of revelation in which a person is shown something in such a way that he feels how far away he is. Feeling that distance awakens in him a desire to change, and that also has an inward effect on him. In that sicha the Rebbe explains why this teaching comes from Reb Hillel of Paritch in the name of the Berditchever. The Berditchever represents makif, because it is Polish Chassidus, associated with Chagas and with makif; that is why he revealed the idea. But who repeated it? Reb Hillel. Reb Hillel was a Chabad chossid, so here there was a joining of these approaches to serving Hashem. In any case, coming back to our point, what is the bottom line? The point is that what the Berditchever told us applies to each and every person. Every Jew sees the Beis Hamikdash in some way, and that is meant to affect us, to bring about a thoroughly inward change. That is the ultimate purpose. Earlier, the Rebbe also brings another very important point, about the heavenly voice. The Baal Shem Tov says something similar about it:

16:42 Speaker 1 A heavenly voice goes out and says—every day a heavenly voice goes out from Mount Chorev. The whole matter of the heavenly voice follows the same principle. Who hears it? Tzaddikim do not need the heavenly voice, while the wicked do not hear it. So there too the explanation is that the heavenly voice affects the makif, the yechidah, the chayah, and from there comes an awakening to teshuvah: a person suddenly wants to change. How does it affect him? It begins at the level of makif, but it needs to become internalized. Okay. Now, what is the purpose of being shown the third Beis Hamikdash? The Berditchever explains it with a parable: a father made a beautiful garment for his child. The child tore the garment into pieces. The father made him another garment, but the child tore the second garment too. So the father made the child a third garment, but did not give it to him to wear. At distant intervals—very far apart—he shows him the garment. He tells him that he must conduct himself properly, and then he will give him the garment to wear. In this way, the father accustoms him to conducting himself properly, until it becomes second nature to the child. He gradually accustoms

18:16 Speaker 1 the child to it, until proper conduct becomes natural to him. Then the father gives the child the garment, knowing that he will wear it properly. And the meaning of the parable is clear: the three garments represent the first two Batei Mikdash, which were destroyed, and the third Beis Hamikdash, the one that will be built in the future. Okay, that is the parable. The Rebbe continues.

18:46 Speaker 13 Why does he say “at distant intervals”? What is the significance? Do we know how often it needs to be?

18:52 Speaker 1 No, “at distant intervals”—once a year.

18:54 Speaker 13 No, more often. No, yes.

18:56 Speaker 1 No.

18:58 Speaker 13 “At intervals” does not mean that.

18:59 Speaker 1 It is really interesting that it is once a year. Yes, roughly once a year, after all. Because, as we know, every parable in Torah is precise in all its details. So since this is a parable from the Rabbi of Berditchev, it follows that all its details are precise. The fact that it comes from the Rabbi of Berditchev is very important. But according to this, we have to understand: the Batei Mikdash were permanent dwellings, not temporary structures. The whole point of the Beis Hamikdash is that it is a permanent dwelling. That is its advantage: it is not temporary. The Mishkan, by contrast, was a tent. Chassidus explains the difference between the Mishkan and the Mikdash: the Mishkan is called a tent because it was temporary. How do you say “provisional”?

19:53 Speaker 13 Temporary.

19:53 Speaker 1 What does “temporary” mean? The Beis Hamikdash, by contrast, is permanent. A house, specifically, is something permanent. Yes, that is why it is called a house: it is a fixed place. Because the point of the analogy of clothing is simple: what does a person do? He has, so to speak, two suits. Clothing is the opposite of something permanent; it is something you change. So why do you need a house? You could make a miracle so that the clothing would not need replacing, and that would be it—not just for a limited time. When it says that the clothes did not wear out, that was not their nature. The Torah describes it as a miracle. And the miracle itself was also for a limited time, forty years. At some point, clothing wears out and needs replacing. So what we see here is something very precise about the Beis Hamikdash being a house. These are two questions. The first is that the analogy simply does not fit. The Beis Hamikdash is permanent, while clothing is temporary. Second, if you are already looking for an analogy, you could have drawn that same analogy from a house—a home, the essentials of life, and so on. More than that, there is a third question: What was the intent in the first place? The intent was that the Beis Hamikdash, the home and house, should not become a ruin. When Hakadosh Boruch Hu first gave us the First Beis Hamikdash, and likewise the Second, He gave it to us so that it would remain forever. Hakadosh Boruch Hu wanted it to be an everlasting house. Yes, that was the goal. We spoiled it, but had we been worthy, it would have endured forever. Had we behaved properly, the First Beis Hamikdash would have been an everlasting house. The same goes for the Second. Both were meant to be that way. So why choose the concept of clothing? How does the analogy of clothing fit at all, when it runs counter to the whole purpose? He wanted to give us something that would endure forever. What is the analogy for something everlasting? A house. Clothing is clothing; a house is lasting.

21:42 Speaker 1 Clothing does not last forever. Clothing is, from the outset, just clothing. You give a person a garment knowing that it will not last forever. A garment lasts a year or two at most. At some point it wears out, and you stop using it. Yet the whole intent was that Hakadosh Boruch Hu wanted to give us a house that would be permanent and everlasting. And for that, the analogy is drawn from something that does not last forever: clothing. That is the very opposite of permanence. Yes. So what does that leave us with? Three questions. Again: the first question is, look, the Beis Hamikdash is something permanent. Why draw an analogy from clothing? It is a simple question. Yes, it is a permanent house. Clothing is not permanent. The second question is, why draw an analogy from a garment at all? He could have made the same point using a house. Yes. Why did he choose the analogy of a garment? The third question is that it runs counter to the entire intent. The intent in giving the Beis Hamikdash was specifically that it should last forever. Yet you give an analogy of a father giving his child a garment, knowing it will not last forever. From the outset, when a father gives a garment, he knows it will not last forever. In other words, it is the opposite of the whole idea. Yes, seemingly we should say—there, in footnote 22, interestingly, he adds this, let’s see—the Gemara says: “Not like Avraham, who called it a mountain; not like Yitzchak, who called it a field; but like Yaakov, who called it a house.” So the Third Beis Hamikdash is called a house. It is a house. In other words, its very name is “house.” All the more so, the analogy should have been drawn from a house. Seemingly, one might say that a house is also very similar to clothing. Both are, as it were, ordinary necessities. True, a house has an advantage, and clothing also has one. What exactly is it?

23:39 Speaker 1 Clothing—and this is why he argues that [unclear]—has an advantage specifically in the context of the child going on the right path. In the matter we want to discuss here, the Maggid’s idea that the father wants the child to go on the right path, that Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants us to go on the right path and for it to become second nature, so that we will be ready for the Geulah and the Third Beis Hamikdash—in this respect, clothing is more relevant than a house. That is the new point. This is what the Rebbe is about to explain in this sicha as it relates to us. What are we trying to achieve here? We want the child’s conduct to become second nature, to change the child’s habits. In this particular respect, clothing is a better analogy than a house, and that is why the Berditchever chose the analogy of clothing. In other words, notice that these are not just casual analogies. Every detail of the analogy is precise, and in our case it is specifically clothing, not a house, that matters. That is despite the fact that a house is more closely connected to the Beis Hamikdash in all the ways we mentioned earlier. But there is something special about a garment that a house does not have, and that is what matters for our discussion here. That is why the analogy is drawn from a garment. What is special about a garment that a house does not have? That is what the Rebbe will now explain. We see—the Rebbe goes into this—that “one of the main differences between clothing and a house is that clothing is fitted to a person’s measurements.” One of the main differences between a garment and a house is that a garment is made to fit the particular measurements of the person wearing it. The garment has to have the length and width that match the person’s length and width—not shorter

25:39 Speaker 1 and not longer. An ordinary person wears clothes that fit his measurements. Yes, the garment is neither too short nor too long. He cites the law concerning the garments of the kohanim: they must be “for honor and for beauty,” so they have to fit the kohen’s measurements. With the Rebbe, everything has a basis in halachah. Yes, you need a halachic source. This is something you can see in reality, but with the Rebbe, it is not just an observation: it has to be anchored in halachah. When they made the garments for the Kohen Gadol and the kohanim, the garments had to fit each kohen’s measurements. In other words, they tailored the garments because the Torah says that the clothing must be “for honor and for beauty,” and therefore it must be made to fit him. This emphasizes that every detail of a garment has to correspond to the person wearing it. He also brings, in a lighter vein, the well-known saying about making a living as a garment. Yes, the vessel for a livelihood, as explained in Chassidus, is the garment into which Hashem’s blessing enters. If a person puts too much of himself into earning a living, it is like someone making a garment too long. Instead of helping him, the garment keeps catching and tripping him up. Rather than helping, it harms him. You have to be careful not to wear clothes that are too long. That is the analogy regarding a vessel or garment: it must not be too big, because then the blessing... In our case too, a garment has to be made to fit a person’s measurements. A house, by contrast, has dimensions—length and width—greater than a person’s measurements. A house is different. From the outset, a person does not build a house to fit his own measurements. On the contrary, a person

27:37 Speaker 1 builds a house much larger than himself. And he cites the halachah concerning when a house requires a mezuzah. Again, everything has a basis in halachah. Even when a person builds a house, according to halachah, when is it obligated to have a mezuzah? It must measure at least four amos by four amos. The house needs dimensions of four by four—four amos by four amos. That is larger than a person’s measurements. Four by four is far greater than a person’s width and height. A person’s dimensions also have a halachic measure in the laws of a mikveh. What are a person’s dimensions? One amah by one amah, with a height of three amos. How big is a person? One amah by one amah, and three amos tall. It can be a little more, yes? But in any event, that is the measure used for a mikveh of forty se’ah. A person bends down and fits into a space one amah by one amah and three amos high; that is the forty se’ah of a mikveh. So what do we see? According to halachah, a house is much larger than the measure of a mikveh, which is the halachic measure of a person. From this we understand that a house is not made to fit a person’s measurements, whereas a garment is. So the question is—what do we see here? What does a garment have that a house does not? What is the advantage of a garment? Its advantage is that every detail of the garment is made to fit the particulars of the person.

29:14 Speaker 15 Well, the reason it needs to be four by four is that this makes it fit to live in.

29:18 Speaker 1 Well?

29:19 Speaker 15 So it is for the person.

29:20 Speaker 1 Yes, but it is not measured according to the person’s particular dimensions, only according to a person’s needs in general.

29:24 Speaker 15 Four by four is the same for everyone. What I said applies to everyone.

29:31 Speaker 1 In every—exactly, exactly. That’s the point. Wow. From this it follows that the connection between a garment and the person wearing it is much more detailed and closer than the connection between a house and the person who lives in it. So we see that a garment is closer to a person in a much more specific, personal way, down to all the details, than the connection between a person and the house he lives in. This is what Chassidus calls a close encompassing level and a distant encompassing level—the whole subject. And therefore there is also a difference between a garment and a house in how much we can infer about the person associated with them. In other words, you look at someone’s clothing and want to get to know the person through it. You look at a house and want to get to know the person through the house. There’s a very big difference between how much I can learn about someone through his clothing and how much I can learn about him through his house. In the original: Through a garment, when I look at an article of clothing, I can learn about the particulars of the person wearing it. If I look at someone’s garment, I get a much more detailed sense of the person, his stature, and the like. And the garment fits this particular person’s specific measurements, as we said. Not so with his house. If I see a house, I can generally make only broad inferences about its owner. I know only general things: it’s the house of a rich person or a poor person, and so on. But from a house, I cannot

31:19 Speaker 1 learn the small details about the homeowner. Right. So again, when we look at a person through his clothes, we gain an understanding of his particulars. When we look at a person through his house, we learn general things about him, but we have no detailed understanding of him. So according to what the Rebbe is telling us here, what is the difference between a house and a garment? This will be the point of the sicha, which the Rebbe will now explain wonderfully in relation to the whole idea of the Beis Hamikdash. The difference is that a house has only a general connection to a person; its details are not connected to him. A garment, by contrast, is connected to the person in its details—so much so that through the garment, through its details, I can get to know the person. Why does the Rebbe add that last part here? He has already said something very simple: a house is not made to fit a person’s measurements, while a garment is. He adds that you can get to know a person through his garment more than through his house because it matters for the application of the analogy. In that application, as we’ll soon see, we want to say that through the Beis Hamikdash we gain an understanding of G-dliness. It’s as though you look at the Beis Hamikdash and come to know, to gain some understanding of, Hakadosh Boruch Hu. That’s the point we’ll see. So from the explanation in the sicha, we’ll understand why the Rebbe added this detail at the end of the section. Okay. Now the explanation begins. Everything up to this point has been an introduction. Now, section five—the explanation begins. Would you like something to drink? Something to eat? I’m not giving you anything to eat. Say a bracha. “Blessed are You, Hashem...” The bracha—

33:17 Speaker 1 the bracha. So make the bracha and [unclear]. Have something else. All the best. Section five: “Accordingly, we can also understand why the analogy is specifically a garment and not a house.” Now the Rebbe begins to make his point. After laying the groundwork, let’s see what this is about. Why did the Berditchever Rebbe use a garment for his analogy and not a house? The Rebbe says as follows. Incidentally, there’s also a nice note here, note 29. The Rebbe says that, besides what we discussed—that a garment is made to fit a person’s particular dimensions—there are also different garments: garments for the feet, garments for the body, and garments for the head. There are distinct garments for each part of the body: headwear, clothing for the body, and footwear. Right, we see in Shabbos that there are eighteen garments. The Rebbe has it all, whatever it may be. The Gemara there says that if there’s a fire on Shabbos and you need to save clothing, a person can put on eighteen garments, because that’s the maximum number of garments. The Gemara lists the garments: there are eighteen types of clothing a person can wear. By the way, the Rebbe also cites this in one place as a source concerning the yarmulke, the kippah. There’s a very interesting letter from the Rebbe. It’s a well-known question: what’s the source for the requirement to wear a kippah? Where is it first written? The matter of a kippah isn’t stated explicitly. It’s brought in the Shulchan Aruch, but what’s the earliest source before that? So the Rebbe cites this Gemara in Shabbos about the eighteen garments. It turns out that there’s both a kippah and a head covering. We learn that this isn’t something that arose recently; it already existed in the time of the Gemara. Right. There’s also a saying about the Alter Rebbe. They tell that the Alter Rebbe was asked why he wore distinctive clothing—

35:25 Speaker 1 as if the complaint was that he thought highly of himself. He speaks about bittul, right? That was the sort of complaint against the Alter Rebbe: that he wore distinctive clothing. So the Alter Rebbe answered simply that there’s a head, a body, and feet; you put distinctive clothing on the head. In other words, he went along with the joke, so to speak. It’s simple. There’s also a story about Balta. They asked him why he ate chicken. At the time, only rich people ate chicken. Why did he need to eat chicken? Why did he travel with a horse?—

36:16 Speaker 16 The Gemara too.—

36:17 Speaker 1 Huh?

36:17 Speaker 16 The Gemara too.—

36:19 Speaker 1 Yes. Why did he eat that? The Gemara... You’re a Torah scholar. Yes. Why did he eat it? Why did he have two horses pulling his wagon? Why did he wear a fur coat? Those were three complaints. So the Alter Rebbe said, “I wear a fur coat because it’s warmer, and use two horses because they go faster. And, uh, what was the other one?”—

36:46 Speaker 16 Chicken.

36:47 Speaker 1 “Chicken because it tastes better.” That was it, as we said. Nice, and relevant to our subject. Moving on—where did we leave off? A story. Yes, [unclear]. Here the point begins: the holiness of the Beis Hamikdash isn’t just one general holiness. That’s not what makes it a house for Hashem. You have a house? No. The Beis Hamikdash has something special: distinctions between levels of holiness. In the Beis Hamikdash there are different levels—the Holy of Holies, the Heichal, the courtyard, and so on. Each particular part and place in the Beis Hamikdash has its own particular holiness. The Beis Hamikdash was arranged with distinctions in holiness. There’s the well-known Rambam about the ten degrees of holiness there, one level of holiness within another: ten different levels—Eretz Yisroel, Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, the women’s courtyard, and so on. And the construction of the Beis Hamikdash was “all in writing, from the hand of Hashem, which gave me understanding.” King David received the detailed plan for every part of the Beis Hamikdash. Right. That is, the location, length, width, and so on of every part of the building: every part was planned and measured precisely in accordance with the different levels of holiness of each particular part and place. These weren’t just numbers. In other words, every division in the Beis Hamikdash, every room, every structure and its details—having this measurement and that measurement—was precise. When we study the Rambam’s Laws of the Chosen House, we study all the numbers and precise measurements: how long it was, how wide it was. Everything was exact, from the hand of Hashem; it had to be precisely that way because it corresponded to the levels of holiness. It had to be that way; otherwise, the holiness would not be there. It’s like we say: the Aron in the Holy of Holies had to be two and a half cubits, a cubit

39:09 Speaker 1 And a half. If one detail were missing, it wouldn’t be it. It wouldn’t be an aron. An aron has precise specifications; it has to be made exactly that way. Otherwise, it isn’t an aron. It’s like tefillin: if the tefillin aren’t four by four, but almost four by four—short by one millimeter—then they aren’t tefillin. It’s not that they’re tefillin with something missing. They aren’t tefillin; they don’t have the status of tefillin. In other words, in the Beis Hamikdash, every detail was precisely according to the level of holiness required in that place. Here it had to have these dimensions, and there it had to have those dimensions. The Holy of Holies had to be ten by ten, and so on. All those details. And this is also what we find in the verse, “The Sanctuary of Hashem, which Your hands established.” Chazal say about this that the Beis Hamikdash below is aligned with the Beis Hamikdash above. Why the precise wording, “the Beis Hamikdash below is aligned with” it? It could say that the Beis Hamikdash below is like the Beis Hamikdash above. There’s a Beis Hamikdash below and a Beis Hamikdash above. Why “aligned with”? There’s a precision here. How is the Beis Hamikdash below? With all its distinctions in physical location and dimensions, every individual part, every distinction among the physical details of the Beis Hamikdash—the numbers, the quantities, the area and the structure, the length and width—it is aligned. That’s the point of the wording: precisely aligned. How do we usually understand the plain meaning of the Gemara’s words, “the Beis Hamikdash below is aligned”? That one is opposite the other. “Aligned,” as when you say houses are aligned: yes, one faces the other. No. “Aligned” means precisely matched. Every detail of the Beis Hamikdash below corresponds precisely to how it is above, in the spiritual Beis Hamikdash. So all of it corresponds in the same way to the qualities and levels of holiness

41:12 Speaker 1 of every individual part of the spiritual Beis Hamikdash above. Take, for example, the soul and the body. That example is explained: the soul and the body. The configuration of the soul’s faculties and the configuration of the body correspond precisely. That means every detail of the body’s organs is precisely aligned with the configuration of the soul’s faculties. Fine. We always explain, regarding the inner faculties that are invested in the body’s inner organs, that every detail of the body’s physical form is connected to the spiritual faculties. For example, the structure of the eyes has to be just so, and every detail of the eyes is connected to the spiritual faculties. The brain has one part here and another there, corresponding to binah; this is cool and that is warm. As I said, the physical form of every organ, every detail, is aligned with its spiritual counterpart. That’s precise. But presumably, in a certain respect, this is even more so with the Beis Hamikdash than with the soul and body. I don’t know. The Rebbe doesn’t go into that here; he just says that the physical form is aligned in every detail so that it corresponds to the Beis Hamikdash above. Further, the distinctions between levels of holiness in different places are also connected to distinctions among the Jewish people. These distinctions are connected to distinctions within the Jewish people as well: the Women’s Courtyard, where women could go; the place where a kohen could enter; and so on. That’s not the same point; it’s another aspect. What the Rebbe wants to say is that there are different levels in the space of the Beis Hamikdash. That space is divided because there is a spiritual Beis Hamikdash above, and every detail of the physical Beis Hamikdash corresponds precisely to the supernal Beis Hamikdash. It also corresponds to the souls of the Jewish people. When we say that kohanim enter here,

43:28 Speaker 1 Levi’im here, and Yisraelim here, that too is because the divisions of the Beis Hamikdash are connected to the divisions among the Jewish people. And that, too, comes through a process of descent from level to level. [unclear] That’s why, for example, the Beis Hamikdash is specifically like a garment: its individual parts are divided. The point here is the precise distinctions between levels of holiness, like a garment in every detail. So that’s the connection when we say that the Beis Hamikdash is specifically like a garment. With the Beis Hamikdash, the emphasis is on a detailed process of descent from level to level: every detail corresponds to a particular detail, as with a garment, whose details are fitted to the person wearing it. In other words, let’s explain this a little. I want to— So let’s see: what is the Rebbe getting at here? What is the Rebbe saying? What’s the basic idea? Do you understand? Let’s put it more in the language of Chassidus. Do you understand? There are different levels. As we’re saying here, each area had its own dimensions, its own details, its own laws: who was allowed to enter and what would happen to someone who did. In other words, all the details of the laws, all the particulars—both the quantity and the quality—of every division of the Beis Hamikdash are there because each corresponds to its particular expression in the detailed configuration of G-dliness. In note seven, the Rebbe says something very interesting. He writes: “See below, page 73, that this is also the reason the entire Beis Hamikdash was not on one level: to show that all its parts and dimensions have distinct levels of holiness.” Even the ground itself has a level of holiness. Very interesting. This was around the same time. The Rebbe delivered this sicha around the same time, perhaps even at the same farbrengen. I vaguely remember something like that. We’d have to look it up, but

46:33 Speaker 1 apparently it was at the very same farbrengen, or around the same time, maybe the same year. We can actually look it up. Seventy-three, seventy-three. Let me see. Here it is. Seventy-three. Yes. Well, what’s this? [unclear] And when was this? [unclear] Okay, it was one week after that Shabbos. Yes. That’s where the Rebbe spoke about the Rambam. In Hilchos Beis Habechirah, the Rambam says that the Beis Hamikdash was built on a mountain and had many steps. If you think about it a little, getting around the Beis Hamikdash wasn’t simple. There was a lot of climbing; there was no elevator. You had to climb quite a bit. Yes, there were many steps. You kept going up and up and up and up; you never stopped climbing steps. Ah, here’s an example for you. Yes, in the Beis Hamikdash you had to climb many steps. What was the point? Why couldn’t they make the entire Beis Hamikdash on one level? Why were there fifteen steps from the Women’s Courtyard to the Courtyard of the Israelites, and then more steps elsewhere? What was the reason for all the steps in the Beis Hamikdash? The Rebbe explains in the sicha—and it’s very much connected to our avodah, you understand?—that since we’re saying there were differences in holiness, and the holiness of the Beis Hamikdash permeated its physical reality, every ascent in spiritual holiness was expressed as a physical ascent too. That’s the difference between the Mishkan and the Beis Hamikdash. The Mishkan had no steps. It was all on one level. Although it, too, had the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, the courtyard and the area outside the Heichal—there were distinct areas—the Mishkan had no steps. Everything was on the same level. What’s the difference? Because the Mishkan was a temporary dwelling, meaning that its holiness didn’t fully permeate the physical reality,

48:47 Speaker 1 That was more encompassing. So there was a general holiness; the difference was not something you could see physically. The Beis Hamikdash, by contrast, was a house, a permanent house. In other words, G-dliness permeated the physical reality, so every ascent in holiness was expressed in a physical ascent through the place as well. Physically, too, it was a higher place; you had to climb more steps. And that raises the question: Why were there no steps between the courtyard, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies? The Rebbe asks this in the sicha. The Holy of Holies should have had another thousand steps, or however many. So the Rebbe says no, because however many you made, it would not be enough. Steps are entirely beside the point, because the difference is beyond comparison. It cannot be expressed in any particular measure or boundary. It is very interesting how the Rebbe explains the Rambam. Right, so again, the Rebbe brings this here in the section, and the same applies here. In other words, we see just how much the Beis Hamikdash resembles a garment, rather than a house. What did we say? A house is general; it encompasses, and you do not see the details. But here the point is the opposite. Here we want to say that the holiness is present in a particular way, taking on a particular form with all its distinctions and levels. And that comes through specifically in the analogy of a garment, not a house. That is why the Rebbe’s particular analogy is a garment. This only explains the connection between the Beis Hamikdash and a garment. The question remains: Why is that relevant specifically here, in the analogy of Shabbos Chazon? It is a beautiful point about the Beis Hamikdash, but why was it important to emphasize it here? That is what the Rebbe is about to explain. Where are we?

50:43 Speaker 1 So the Rebbe continues and says—oh, where is that interesting footnote? Thirty-nine. Yes, it was all precise. In footnote thirty-nine, the Rebbe adds to what we said: the special quality of the Beis Hamikdash is that its details corresponded to G-dliness the way a garment does—each detail matched the G-dliness enclothed in it. The Rebbe says this fits very well with the Ramban’s view of how the Shechinah was enclothed in the Beis Hamikdash. As is well known, the early authorities disagree about how the Shechinah was present in the Beis Hamikdash: did it pass through it, or was it enclothed in it? The Rambam says it passed through; the Ramban says it was enclothed. Are you familiar with that? We discussed it, yes. How was G-dliness revealed in the Beis Hamikdash? Was it like the fingers of the hand, where something passes through the fingers but is not enclothed in them? When you write something, the hand is not a vessel for the intellect. The hand only conveys the intellect to the page; it is not a vessel for it. A hand is a hand, a finger is a finger—it is not a vessel. Along these lines, in the Rambam’s view, the Beis Hamikdash was not a vessel for G-dliness; G-dliness merely passed through it to the Jewish people, while the Beis Hamikdash itself remained what it was. According to the Ramban, though, no: it was present by way of enclothement, like intellect enclothed in the brain, where the brain is a vessel for intellect. Similarly, the Beis Hamikdash is a vessel. So the Rebbe brings this here because that is the approach of Chassidus. Chassidus follows the Ramban’s view: it was not a matter of passing through, but of enclothement. So it fits the analogy of a garment better—enclothement, right. That is what he says. And it is also the view of Chassidus that, where there is something analogous to enclothement, it is appropriate to speak of a garment. That fits our analogy here: it is a form of enclothement, so it requires details that

52:24 Speaker 1 correspond to the form of the G-dliness. In short, although this quality of a garment in the Beis Hamikdash existed, as explained above, in the First and Second Beis Hamikdash and in the Mishkan—perhaps we can explain what is novel here. Let’s see the Rebbe’s wording. Although it existed in all of them—the First Beis Hamikdash, the Second, and the Mishkan—in each one there was this particularized holiness, distinctions in holiness, and precise measurements. All these things existed in each of them. The Rebbe says that perhaps we can explain the novelty in this wording: nevertheless, the main point and novelty of the garment analogy concerns the Third Beis Hamikdash. Where is the idea of a garment most distinctive? Specifically in the Third Beis Hamikdash. That seems contradictory. If we are saying it is like a garment, with details that follow the form of what it clothes, then all of this—the way it is enclothed in the details—will be even more pronounced in the Third Beis Hamikdash than in the Second, the First, or the Mishkan. Specifically in the Third. Why? Here is the explanation. Why will the idea of a garment be more pronounced there than in the earlier ones? Read on. The fact that the First and Second Beis Hamikdash resembled a garment through their particular components, corresponding to the holiness within them and within the Jewish people, as explained above, is not stated explicitly in the sources. It is not explicit in the verses and so on. Nor was it visibly apparent in each detail. In other words, you could not plainly see how each detail revealed something. In practice, the Rambam says that it must have these measurements and those measurements, that this area must be such and such a size, and that this part must be built in a particular way. It is written in the Rambam, in the Gemara, in the Shulchan Aruch, in Tanach—wherever it is written. But when someone looked at the Beis Hamikdash, did he

54:38 Speaker 1 see in every detail its connection to G-dliness? He knew it had details and that they were precise. “All this was put in writing by the hand of Hashem, Who gave me understanding”—King David received it from Hakadosh Boruch Hu. But when I actually looked at the Beis Hamikdash, what did I see? I saw a very beautiful, very precisely constructed, very lovely building. But we could not see how each detail of the Beis Hamikdash revealed a particular aspect of G-dliness. We did not see that, because we were not yet capable of it. G-dliness was not revealed there in that way. What was visibly apparent was that this was Hashem’s house, and that, in general, it was a holy place. The only thing we would see was a building that, as a whole, was the Beis Hamikdash. You would see, broadly, that this was holy and that was the Holy of Holies. But nobody could look at the Beis Hamikdash and say, “Ah, do you know why this is a hundred amos? Because a hundred amos corresponds to this sefirah, or whatever it might be. And this is built this way because it represents a particular idea.” We would see a building and understand that it was Hashem’s house, a holy house, and we knew that this part had one degree of holiness and that part another. But that was all a general impression. To say that we saw, in every single detail, how it was connected to the Beis Hamikdash above and to G-dliness—that we did not see. In the Third Beis Hamikdash, however, this special quality itself will be recognizable and revealed, making it analogous to a garment. Even our physical eyes will be able to see how each detail is a garment: every detail of the building will correspond to the particular holiness within it. In other words, let’s put it this way. A simple example: you learn a profound concept and they give

56:38 Speaker 1 an analogy for it. Right? An analogy and what it represents. Every analogy works that way. You learn an idea in Chassidus and are given an analogy—an analogy from light, from the sun; an analogy from “From my flesh I perceive G-d” to explain G-dliness, or from the soul’s ten faculties to explain the ten sefiros. So we study analogies in Chassidus. You picture the analogy, and through it you understand what it represents. Usually, though, what do we see? We see general ideas. I say that the sun is an analogy for the Infinite Light. Just as the sun shines naturally, without a separate effort, so it is above as well. But can I say that I understand exactly how every detail of the sun is an analogy for the Infinite Light? Certainly not. There are several general points I can make. Of course, the more Chassidus you learn and the deeper you go, the more details you can see in the analogy—more and more details, according to the depth of your understanding. But imagine if, through the analogy of the sun, we could see how every detail of the sun represents something in the Infinite Light. In other words, not a single detail of the sun would be without a corresponding meaning. That would be something else entirely, a whole different category. Usually you can see a connection in general terms. “From my flesh I perceive G-d”: the human being is an analogy for G-dliness. Just as the soul fills the body, so Hakadosh Boruch Hu fills the world. That is a general analogy: soul and body, Hakadosh Boruch Hu and the world. There is a connection, but you do not see the details. That is what we are saying. The difference, the novelty of the future era, is that G-dliness will be revealed in the Beis Hamikdash. The holiness, the Shechinah, will be visibly revealed there—in every detail of the Beis Hamikdash,

58:44 Speaker 1 In a revealed way, it will be a metaphor that does not conceal what it represents—a metaphor that reveals it. In other words, you look at the metaphor and see what aspect of G-dliness is revealed through each and every detail. That will be what is new in the time to come. And accordingly, the main point is that it is like a garment. What did we say? What is the advantage of a garment? Its advantage is that every detail fits the person’s measurements. That is the advantage of a garment over a house. Where will this be seen primarily in the time to come? In the First and Second Beis Hamikdash, it was present in a general way, not in every detail. People did not see how every detail reveals G-dliness. In the time to come, they will see how every detail of the Beis Hamikdash corresponds to something above. And what does that mean? What is the G-dly significance of each detail? We will see how every detail of the Beis Hamikdash reveals an aspect of G-dliness. Or in the body of the world—it will be that way.

59:34 Speaker 17 No, that only relates to quantity, not quality.

59:43 Speaker 1 Now I’ll continue. You’re asking a good question. He’s asking whether this all relates only to quantity, not quality. In other words, it’s a matter of how much a person knows—knowing more or less, seeing more details or fewer details. No. There is something else here, something much deeper. That is what the Rebbe goes on to explain, and the reason for it. What is the real reason? We’re saying that every detail will be such that, through it, people will see how it corresponds to the things above. So here the Rebbe says something very profound. The Zohar says that the First and Second Beis Hamikdash were “a building of man,” whereas this Beis Hamikdash, in the time to come—the Third Beis Hamikdash—will be “a building of Hakadosh Boruch Hu.” So what is the difference between the First and Second, and the Third? The First and Second were buildings of man, buildings constructed by human beings. That explains why the First was destroyed and the Second was destroyed, while the Third Beis Hamikdash will be eternal. The First and Second were buildings of man, built by human beings, and therefore they could not endure. The Third Beis Hamikdash will be a building of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, and therefore it will endure. Fine. That is the wording. It says that in the Zohar. But what comes next? How does it relate to our discussion? In truth, according to this, every part and detail of the First and Second Beis Hamikdash was precisely according to Hashem’s instructions and its corresponding aspect of holiness. It is true that every detail of the First and Second was precisely according to Hashem’s instructions. But ultimately, the building and its details were the work of human hands. Who built it? A human being built it. Hashem told them how to make it, but a human being built it. So it was not openly felt that the details of the Beis Hamikdash below actually corresponded to the details of the holiness of Hakadosh Boruch

1:01:33 Speaker 1 Hu. Wow! What is the Rebbe saying? The Rebbe is saying this: Do you know why—what does it mean? Why, in the time to come, will we look at the Beis Hamikdash and see how every detail reveals something in the Beis Hamikdash above, when we did not see that in the First? At first glance, I would say that it’s because Moshiach had not come. It was concealed, and when Moshiach comes it will be revealed. Right? The simple explanation is that it’s a matter of revelation and concealment. In the times of the First and Second Beis Hamikdash, the world had not yet been sufficiently refined, so these things were—well, you simply couldn’t see them. Moshiach will come and reveal G-dliness, and then we’ll see. That’s a different point. What is the Rebbe’s point here? That explanation may be good, but the Rebbe’s point goes deeper. The Rebbe’s point is that in the present era, the Beis Hamikdash consists of two parts. There is a part made by a human being, and a part that comes from above. That is the meaning of “a building of man.” People build a house, and in that house something is revealed; it corresponds to something above. Hakadosh Boruch Hu tells King David: There is a Beis Hamikdash above, and every detail of that Beis Hamikdash is precise. I am going to reveal to you how to make a Beis Hamikdash that corresponds to the one above. So there are two things here. There is what King David builds—as a human being, it is ultimately a building of man—and there is what Hakadosh Boruch Hu tells him, so that what he makes will correspond to what is above. There is a combination of two things here, like matter and form. There is the physical substance of the Beis Hamikdash, which is not G-dliness, and there is its form—the details. So there is always a part that is not G-dliness, and you can see one without the other. You can see only the material part, without seeing the form. You see only the physical, not the spiritual. So

1:03:37 Speaker 1 you don’t see how every detail expresses G-dliness, because these are two distinct things, two worlds. But when we say that in the time to come, when Moshiach arrives, it will be “a building of Hakadosh Boruch Hu,” that means there will be no detail in the Beis Hamikdash that is not of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. We are saying that in the time to come, even the physical building will be a building of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. In other words, its entire existence will be G-dliness. There will be no aspect of it that is not G-dliness. So if no aspect of it is not G-dliness, then when you look at the Beis Hamikdash, what do you see? You see G-dliness. And in every detail you see, what do you see in it? You see a G-dly meaning. G-dliness is not something added to it; it is its entire existence. That is the difference between the First, Second, and Third Beis Hamikdash. In the First and Second, there was a part of its existence that was not G-dliness. That itself is why I can look at the Beis Hamikdash without seeing how every detail reveals G-dliness. That is something additional. The detail corresponds to something above, yes, but to see that you have to be King David. What does an ordinary person see? He sees a building. What does he see? A general holiness; he does not see the holiness in each detail. But in the time to come it will be a building of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. That means Hakadosh Boruch Hu, G-dliness, is the whole thing. There will be no detail that is not G-dliness. And if there is no detail that is not G-dliness, you cannot see the building without seeing G-dliness; you cannot see any detail that is not G-dliness. By contrast, this Beis Hamikdash will not be made that way; rather, the building itself—the very structure—will be a building of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, when even in the details of the Beis Hamikdash below, the details of holiness of the Beis

1:05:19 Speaker 1 Hamikdash above will be openly reflected. The very existence of the details, and so on, of the physical Beis Hamikdash itself will correspond to the measure of the holiness above that is within it. Do you understand the point here? Huh?

1:05:47 Speaker 18 The Ark of the Covenant is—

1:05:49 Speaker 1 What?

1:05:50 Speaker 18 The Ark of the Covenant—they brought it before the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed. No, there is something physical there. It was a physical thing, not a question of who built it.

1:06:00 Speaker 1 Okay.

1:06:02 Speaker 18 So it will be something physical. How does that work? It’s as if...

1:06:06 Speaker 1 All right, that doesn’t matter. Also, the Beis Hamikdash in general will be built by Moshiach. It simply doesn’t say that... Huh?

1:06:15 Speaker 18 There are different opinions about that.

1:06:16 Speaker 1 Yes, yes. It’s not about another structure. The question is what will be felt in the building. So the point is something else, something much deeper. Let’s put it in the language of Chassidus to understand what we’re saying here. Let’s take a metaphor and what it represents, all right? A metaphor and what it represents. We learn metaphors. There is the sun associated with the name Havayah, and there is the physical sun. Right? There is the word of Havayah, and there is physical speech. Every metaphor and what it represents that we learn about in Chassidus: a king of flesh and blood, and Hakadosh Boruch Hu as King. Generally, a metaphor and what it represents are two worlds, one serving as a metaphor for the other. There is a physical sun and a spiritual sun, and one is a metaphor for the other. There are ten faculties of the soul and ten sefiros above, and one is a metaphor for the other. But there is a much higher way of looking at it. In truth, we know that the metaphor itself descends from what it represents. Isn’t that so? What does it say in Tanya? “The ten faculties of the soul descended from the ten sefiros above.” The created sun descends from the sun associated with Havayah. So imagine that you could look at it and see it with your own eyes. Imagine that Hashem opened our eyes, and we didn’t merely hear a metaphor. On the contrary, we would see how the sun below emerges from the sun associated with Havayah, how the ten faculties below emerge from the ten sefiros above. Are there two things here, or aren’t there? There aren’t two things. So it is no longer two things; it is essentially the same thing on a lower plane. You look at the ten faculties of the soul and see the ten sefiros in them. When a person stands outside of this—we are human beings of flesh and blood—we don’t see how the ten faculties of the soul come from the ten sefiros. We see

1:08:17 Speaker 1 The ten powers of the soul—we’re familiar with those, and from them we try to understand the Ten Sefiros above. As human beings, we learn through analogies from below to above. We see an analogy down here, and from it we try to understand what it represents. So for us, these are always two worlds. And because they’re two worlds, there’s always some part of the analogy that doesn’t fit—the outer shell. There’s always something that doesn’t carry over because it belongs to the physical side. That part isn’t relevant, so I have to rule out various parts. But in truth, from Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s perspective, from above, the meaning is that the “sun of Hashem” itself becomes the physical sun in a certain way. I’m just giving that as an example to help us understand. Then there’s no part of the thing that doesn’t fit. That is its entire purpose; there’s nothing else to it. The same applies, I’m saying, to the Beis Hamikdash above and below—we’ll get to that. But it depends on how you look at it. You say there’s an Ark of the Covenant—of course there is. But how? What are the dimensions of the Ark? What are the dimensions of every detail of the Beis Hamikdash? Does it mean that there’s a created thing here—a place, the Beis Hamikdash, stones brought from various places and built into it—and after they built the Beis Hamikdash to its exact specifications, a G-dly light was revealed in it? But it still has its aspect as a building, its physical side. That part isn’t connected, and so I can look at it without seeing G-dly light in it. But once you say no—that it will be revealed that, from the outset, every detail of the Beis Hamikdash is nothing other than an expression of the Beis Hamikdash above—then when you look at it, you don’t see two things. You see in every single detail how

1:10:10 Speaker 1 it reveals the Beis Hamikdash above. So when Moshiach comes—what were you asking about the Ark of the Covenant? When Moshiach comes, we’ll merit to see the Ark. What, we won’t see the Ark, and you’ll have to study Tanya in order to understand it? From the outset, you’ll see the Ark as an expression of the Ark above. Then you’ll see that every detail, every point, every single aspect reveals G-dliness.

1:10:49 Speaker 19 What’s the difference in how they receive it? How the flow of influence reaches them?

1:10:52 Speaker 1 That’s the difference.

1:10:54 Speaker 19 That we’ll be, as it were, the ones giving the influence.

1:10:55 Speaker 1 Yes, yes. The point is to see things through the eyes of Hakadosh Boruch Hu.

1:11:00 Speaker 19 It’s not a change in degree; it’s a change in level.

1:11:02 Speaker 1 Um, yes, that’s what I mean.

1:11:06 Speaker 19 They’re saying here that—

1:11:09 Speaker 1 It’s part of that same ascent. What do you mean by the difference between a change in level...? I don’t know whether the change is in the object and the body together, or whether it’s the same thing.

1:11:20 Speaker 19 The object will appear that way because...

1:11:22 Speaker 1 Ah, because that will be the truth of reality. That will be the truth of the world, so it will be our truth as well. That applies to me, too.

1:11:30 Speaker 19 David also built it because he had [unclear].

1:11:36 Speaker 1 What are you saying?

1:11:38 Speaker 19 David also built it because [unclear].

1:11:40 Speaker 1 Yes.

1:11:43 Speaker 19 So why wasn’t the table also like it was with Moshe and [unclear]?

1:11:47 Speaker 1 Ultimately, it still wasn’t like it was with Moshe. No, the world was still a reality in its own right. What do you expect? The building wasn’t there yet; it was a human being. Didn’t you see that there was heat?

1:11:59 Speaker 19 It was only a blow to the bone.

1:12:02 Speaker 1 Huh? What’s the problem?

1:12:03 Speaker 19 Very physical, fine. Actually, we haven’t talked about that yet. You feel it in the building. Do you feel in the building that it’s a human being, or do you feel in the building that it’s something filled with love?

1:12:16 Speaker 1 Right, that’s the point. There’s no gap. Everything changes—the whole object and everything about it. The whole world changes, is transformed. We’ll see in a moment; we’re in the middle of the subject here. We haven’t reached the unity of Hashem yet—these are all introductions. I remember Rabbi Eliezer once said—and this relates to another topic, but apparently it relates here too—he stated a logical principle: If you can see something and you’re not one hundred percent certain that this is what the thing is, that means it isn’t one hundred percent that thing. It means there’s something else to it. In other words, if I can look at something and not see its essence in it, then I’m not seeing its essence. Everyone knows this. But someone could be a fool, the greatest fool in the world, and know nothing about it. He looks at Rava and doesn’t see it. That means we’re talking about two things.

1:13:41 Speaker 20 Rabbi Aitchi[?].

1:13:42 Speaker 1 Ah, Rabbi Aitchi[?] talks about this?

1:13:43 Speaker 20 He talks about it. He gives the analogy of a chair: you can judge whether it’s the head of a person—you can take a physical chair and judge whether it’s the head of a person. It does have an inner meaning, but sometimes someone won’t see that meaning in it; he’ll only see the [unclear]. You can...

1:13:58 Speaker 1 You said, with a second measure—how?

1:14:00 Speaker 20 Yes.

1:14:02 Speaker 1 Oh.

1:14:02 Speaker 20 That it’s separate from its meaning, and that’s why it’s possible.

1:14:04 Speaker 1 Oh, oh, oh! So you heard that from Rabbi Aitchi[?]. Okay, good. So apparently that’s the point. Yes, I’ve heard it. You say a table is there for us to use for learning. That’s why there’s a table: so you can learn at it. But is that one hundred percent what it is? Entirely? No. Why not? Because some people look at a table and see it as a place to make noises on. I also... or that’s not... In other words, not everyone sees that as the table’s purpose. That means there are other aspects to it. Someone has never seen a table in his life. He comes from the jungle or somewhere, and he doesn’t know what a table is. He enters a house with a table and says, “Ah, wood. It’s very nice, but it’s a piece of wood.” He has no concept of a table. When... In other words, when something is such that you can’t see it any other way—this is the only way to see it—that means it is its entire purpose. If not, it isn’t its entire purpose; it has other aspects. Similarly, someone could look at the Beis Hamikdash in the time of the First Beis Hamikdash and not see how every detail revealed G-dliness, because G-dliness had not yet truly permeated every part of its reality. Some reality remained outside of that, and therefore you could see the Beis Hamikdash without seeing G-dliness in it. You could think, “Perhaps this detail, this part, is unnecessary. It could exist without it.” No—that was not yet the kind of unity in the Beis Hamikdash where there is no aspect that isn’t G-dly, so that every detail reveals G-dliness. Good, so this explains to us in very, very tangible terms why a garment is a better analogy than a house. In this respect, we can understand why the analogy brought is specifically

1:16:06 Speaker 1 a garment: because the unity is expressed in a garment. And it’s something remarkable that this will be present to a greater extent specifically in the Third Beis Hamikdash. This connects with what’s coming shortly. We still haven’t reached the end of the section, but at least this explains why the analogy of a garment has an advantage. The Rebbe continues with this in section 7 and says: “It is known...” Sorry. Now, the Shechinah rests specifically in the Beis Hamikdash. What did our Sages say about the Beis Hamikdash? That the entire world receives from the Beis Hamikdash—the light that goes out to the whole world—like the soul residing in the brain in the head and the heart in relation to the parts of the body. Yes, this analogy appears in Tanya: everything is in the brain, and from there it reaches all the limbs. So from the Beis Hamikdash it extends to the entire body. And the particular analogy mentioned above, of a garment, tells us that this revelation is not limited to the Third Beis Hamikdash. Rather, it is specifically through the Beis Hamikdash that the light is revealed throughout the whole creation. Wow! Now the Rebbe says that the point we’ve been discussing about the Beis Hamikdash needs further explanation: it won’t be only in the Beis Hamikdash. The same thing will be true throughout the world—every detail will reveal G-dliness in its own particular way. We’ll see this throughout the entire world. The explanation begins with an introduction. Regarding the Ten Utterances—and here we come to a fundamental point about the unity of Heaven—regarding the Ten Utterances [unclear]. We all know that Hakadosh Boruch Hu created the world through Ten Utterances. As is known, [unclear]. There is creation from nothing, with its particulars, and the Ten Utterances provide the flow of life to each particular created being. So what does “the Ten Utterances” mean? There are ten of them. The utterances are always within each particular created being, giving it life and sustaining it. So the Rebbe is telling us that there are particular utterances, ten particular utterances, clothed within each individual created being to give it life and sustain it. Similarly,

1:18:09 Speaker 1 Reaches every individual created being in all the worlds. How can that be? Even those that are not explicitly mentioned in the Ten Utterances. Right, so it is known that all of them come from the Ten Utterances in the Torah. Well, they receive life from the Ten Utterances through all kinds of letter substitutions and rearrangements. Right, but the Rebbe explains that there are numerical values, substitutions, and rearrangements—all sorts of ways the letters combine—until they become invested in an individual created being and give it life. How can the Ten Utterances give life to, and bring into being, all these individual beings? They cannot receive life from the Ten Utterances themselves. So what are we saying here? The particular differences between things—their nature, properties, and form—come from the Ten Utterances and their substitutions and rearrangements. That is where the individual details come from. What the Rebbe says here is very powerful. It is one of the Rebbe’s great insights in explaining Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah. In Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, the Alter Rebbe cites the Baal Shem Tov’s interpretation of “Forever, Hashem, Your word stands firm in the heavens”: Hashem’s word brings every detail of creation into being at every moment. Now, there is the famous question: seemingly, this was not a new teaching of the Baal Shem Tov. It is written in the Midrash. The Midrash on Tehillim says practically the same thing: Hashem’s word is present in the firmament. What did the Baal Shem Tov add? His interpretation. There are the familiar answers: that the Baal Shem Tov revealed it, publicized it. The Rebbe says no—the Baal Shem Tov taught something new. What was it? When people study chapter 1 of Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah—everyone knows chapter 1 of Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah—there is a very simple question: the whole

1:20:08 Speaker 1 lengthy discussion in that chapter is hard to understand. It is an entire chapter that the Alter Rebbe could have said in five lines. The Alter Rebbe begins with the Baal Shem Tov’s interpretation, and then says: not only the firmament, but stones, earth, and water too. Each one has Divine life that brings it into being at every moment, and if that life stopped bringing it into being, it would return to absolute nothingness. Then he says: although the word “stone” is not mentioned in the Torah, a stone nevertheless receives life through the names and letters of the Holy Tongue. Now you need another whole chapter, because you ask: What does the Alter Rebbe want with all these details? After all, the Alter Rebbe wanted to present the Baal Shem Tov’s new teaching. He said it at the beginning; everything is clear. The Baal Shem Tov said, “Forever, Hashem, Your word stands firm in the heavens”—Hashem’s word is present in the heavens at every moment. The moment it stops, they will become absolute nothingness. Done. Five lines. What is the rest of the chapter for? Why isn’t “stone” written in the Torah? Why does that concern you? Why isn’t “stone” written in the Torah? What does that have to do with Tanya? That is a question on Chumash, not a question in Tanya. Why isn’t “stone” written there? Hakadosh Boruch Hu created the stone however He wanted. What? That is not a question in Tanya. It is a question on Chumash. Really, it is not a question at all. Does Hakadosh Boruch Hu need every one of the millions, trillions of created beings written in the Torah? What do you want? What is the question in the first place? Why bring it up here? What does the Alter Rebbe want? So the Rebbe comes along and offers a remarkable insight. Friends, this is the depth of the Rebbe’s sicha. The Rebbe says: No, the Baal Shem Tov taught something new—not just that things are brought into being. The Baal Shem Tov introduced the idea of life-force being invested within them. He taught that Hashem’s word does not merely bring something into being from nothing; it is

1:21:59 Speaker 1 invested within every detail. That is what the Rebbe is pointing out here. That is the whole depth of the sicha. What is the depth? There is a general point: creation from nothing. There is a general point in everything that is brought into being, whether it is inanimate, a plant, an animal, a human being, a stone, earth, water, a force, a cat, a butterfly, or a tiger. What difference does it make? There is something all created beings share: they are brought into being from nothing. Here is a created being. It exists. It comes from nothing, when it could not otherwise exist. Creation from nothing—that is a wonder. And Hakadosh Boruch Hu can bring something into being from nothing. That is a general feature of all creation, regardless of the being. Then there is something else entirely: the details of the created being. Every being has its own particular form, properties, manner, and defining characteristics. It is made in a particular way, in its length and width and every detail, with its own distinctiveness. About this we say: Hashem’s word is invested within every detail. The Baal Shem Tov added to what the Midrash says. The Midrash spoke about coming into being from nothing. The Midrash says that creation from nothing is a wonder: if Hashem’s word were not present, the being would become absolute nothingness. The Baal Shem Tov says something more: not only does Hashem’s word bring it into being, it is invested within it. That means its particular form, too, has a connection to Hashem’s word. In other words, the reason a created being has this form and these details is that Hashem’s word consists of these particular letters, arranged in this particular way. Every particular form of a created being is connected with a particular form within G-dliness. Then the question arises: Wait, if Hashem’s word is invested within it, that means it also takes on the particular form of the created being. There is no detail in a created being that is not connected with G-dliness. It is not merely creation

1:23:51 Speaker 1 from nothing. Creation from nothing is a general point, but the details could, for all we know, come from all kinds of other causes. The Baal Shem Tov says no. The particular form comes from the particular word of Hashem invested within it. If there is a particular word of Hashem for every created being, then where is “stone”? That is why the question only arises after the Alter Rebbe has presented the Baal Shem Tov’s new teaching. The Baal Shem Tov revealed a new principle in the oneness of Hashem. Hashem’s oneness is not only in the point all created beings share—their creation from nothing. The Baal Shem Tov revealed that the particular nature of every created being is also connected with G-dliness. So if the nature of every created being has a place in G-dliness, where in G-dliness is “stone”? It ought to be written in the Torah. That is why we have to say that there are numerical values, letter combinations, and so on, as the Alter Rebbe explains. That is what the Rebbe says here in the sicha, and it also explains our subject. It connects with what we have been saying: the Beis Hamikdash is not just holy in a general sense. Every detail of the Beis Hamikdash, individually, reveals a particular level of holiness. Every number, every numerical value, every quantity, every quality, every form in the Beis Hamikdash is connected with something in G-dliness, and this will be revealed throughout the world. The Beis Hamikdash is the source of the light that emanates from all of these. In other words, something flows from the Beis Hamikdash to the entire world, so that throughout the world, too, the revelation of Hashem’s oneness is not merely general. It is revealed in particular: in each and every detail of creation, the unique aspect of G-dliness that it reveals becomes apparent—something no other created being can reveal. When you look at the world and see a particular being, it reveals a unique aspect of G-dliness that another being does not reveal. And this

1:25:41 Speaker 1 is received through the Beis Hamikdash. Do you understand what we have been discussing?

1:25:49 Speaker 21 In the end, creation from nothing is beyond comparison. How does it reach the details?

1:25:55 Speaker 1 We will explain that in a moment. Those are already questions. First of all, what does the sicha say? Hold on—first, the plain meaning of the sicha. I want to add something else I remember Reb Yoel saying when he discussed this subject. It was very geshmak. I had the privilege of hearing it. Reb Yoel did not present it as his own idea; he said he had heard it from the Rebbe. I do not know where the Rebbe said it. We need to look for it. But Reb Yoel would say—the Rebbe did not speak... So the Rebbe did speak about it. He said the Rebbe once discussed something like this. It says in the Gemara—I do not know where; the Torah scholars can tell me where—I think it is a Gemara about Tannaim who traveled together on a ship. Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Amiel [?]. Anyway, these Tannaim traveled together on a ship, and one of them said he could tell how many drops of water there are in the sea. He could calculate how many drops there are in the sea. Wow! Where is that?

1:26:55 Speaker 21 It is in the Gemara.

1:27:00 Speaker 1 In the Gemara. They can calculate how many drops there are in the sea. It is from the Gemara, a short page, I think. At any rate.

1:27:06 Speaker 21 He told me.

1:27:07 Speaker 1 Huh?

1:27:09 Speaker 21 He said something excellent about it.

1:27:14 Speaker 1 It was in the Gemara. So he said, “Do you hear? Ah, I’ll have it.” So it’s written there. You know the story about the Tannaim who traveled on a ship, and one of them said he could tell how many drops there were in the sea. When you learn the Gemara on its plain level, how are you supposed to learn that? How do genuine Torah scholars learn it? What’s the point of the story on its plain level? The point is Rabbi Yehoshua’s brilliance in arithmetic and geometry. That takes knowledge. It’s no simple matter to know how to measure a sea. You need to know its depth and width and so on, and some parts are deeper, some shallower. It’s complicated—calculating every last drop. It’s an extremely complex calculation, and he had a gift for numbers. But what’s the point in Chassidus? In Chassidus, the sea is a metaphor for Malchus of Atzilus. In Chassidus, yes, Malchus is called a sea. An ordinary person might say, “Why is Malchus of Atzilus called a sea?” We learn in Chassidus that just as all the streams flow into the sea, so too all the sefiros are included in Malchus of Atzilus. What else can you say about a sea? There are creatures in the sea, or there’s... If I understood your question correctly—tell me if I did—you’re asking how the particular form of a created being can correspond to a particular aspect of G-dliness. Since a created being comes into existence from nothing, and creation from nothing is utterly beyond comparison, there’s no relationship, no common measure. So how can its details have any intrinsic significance? After all, a created being is beyond comparison. If there’s no common measure, having a particular form doesn’t bring it any closer. Right? In every detail, every point, every drop: how does that drop reveal

1:31:11 Speaker 1 a particular aspect of G-dliness? On that basis, he knew the number of drops, because he knew what was revealed in each drop, what aspect of G-dliness it revealed. That means he saw the world’s unity even in its details, not only in general terms. We spoke about this. Yes, you can speak in general terms. What’s happening in the sea? They’re connected. But to see how every drop in the sea reveals something—that’s something very special. Not necessarily in the sense of serving Hashem; it’s about life here. There’s also the matter of enclothement here. On a simple level—and we’ll soon see it, and I think the sicha takes it deeper—I’ll first explain it simply. Simply put, there’s another way to explain the Baal Shem Tov’s fundamental point. You could put it in terms of memalei kol almin. In other words, there is sovev and there is memalei. Hakadosh Boruch Hu wanted His connection with a created being to be not only through His boundlessness, through His power to create something from nothing, through the fact that He is beyond comparison—not only through that kind of unity. Hakadosh Boruch Hu wanted a connection with the very content of the created being as well. In other words—and this brings us to what we also learned in 5664—the concept of the sefiros of Atzilus. Remember when we discussed this? Why are there sefiros of Atzilus? Why did Hakadosh Boruch Hu make the sefiros of Atzilus? Why is there a realm of Atzilus? Why couldn’t creation proceed directly from Ein Sof to created beings? If a created being comes into existence from nothing, then it’s creation from nothing, with no common measure: Hakadosh Boruch Hu is infinite and brings it into being from nothing. What do we need Atzilus for? We spoke about this in the beginning of the series of maamarim from 5664. There’s an important point there. What does it mean? It means that without Atzilus, a created being’s connection with Hakadosh Boruch Hu would not involve its own content. On the contrary, its content would have no connection to G-dliness.

1:33:33 Speaker 1 The unity of Havayah would not be present in the details. The unity of Havayah would mean that the created being doesn’t exist, that it has no independent reality. But its reality itself would not be G-dliness. And [unclear] is called unity and bittul. So when we say that a created being comes into existence from nothing, that means it is beyond comparison and must be battel. You have no independent reality; that’s how your reality relates to G-dliness. But the whole basis of the unity of Havayah is that the created being itself—and this is precisely the innovation the Baal Shem Tov wanted to reveal. The Baal Shem Tov wanted to reveal this idea. He came to explain that even the details of a created being reveal G-dliness. We understand this because there is not only sovev; there is also memalei. In other words, there is not only the power to create something from nothing. There is also a distinct form within the word of Havayah. The word of Havayah itself has details and form, and that form enclothes itself in the created being’s form. Through this, even the created being’s particular form reveals G-dliness. On the face of it, that’s the simple distinction from sovev. Why do we say the details are connected to the word of Havayah? Because then the unity of Havayah is expressed in every single detail. There isn’t a single detail that doesn’t reveal the unity of Havayah—even its form, even its details.

1:34:48 Speaker 3 Really, how could something exist without having a connection to the idea behind it?

1:34:52 Speaker 1 …

1:34:54 Speaker 3 Explain that clearly: how could the details come into existence?

1:34:57 Speaker 1 They could come from His will. They don’t necessarily have to come from... Simply put, they could come from His will. How was this understood without the Baal Shem Tov? How was it learned before the Baal Shem Tov? What do you say? What did people say before the Baal Shem Tov? Everything comes from Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Hakadosh Boruch Hu creates something from nothing. As for the forms and details, it arose in His will that there should be all kinds of details, and so those details came into being.

1:35:24 Speaker 3 So that makes them battel to His will.

1:35:25 Speaker 1 What?

1:35:25 Speaker 3 So that makes them battel to His will.

1:35:27 Speaker 1 Yes, but then there’s no relationship between those details and Him. The details themselves don’t relate to G-dliness. Where are the details rooted? In His will. It arose in His will that there should be inanimate matter, plants, animals, and human beings, and so they came into being. But to say that the inanimate has a particular significance, that it reveals a particular aspect, or that a plant is chessed and this is gevurah—on that understanding, there is no chessed or gevurah in G-dliness, no sefiros in G-dliness, no distinct form in G-dliness. Form is something that came into being with the world. In other words, the world’s unity with Hakadosh Boruch Hu comes through its bittul. You step beyond your own reality, whether you are inanimate or not. The plant is no longer a plant; the animal is no longer an animal. It isn’t defined by what it is. It was created from nothing, it is beyond comparison, and that is how it connects. So the created being’s connection with G-dliness is through the fact that it has been brought into existence, not through what it is within that existence. And this is the innovation in the unity of Havayah that the Baal Shem Tov revealed: even within its existence, its content is a G-dly matter. This is possible because there are ten sefiros in G-dliness; there is distinct form. In the language of this maamar, there are ten particular utterances, and their details have further details, and there are letters, and the letters have forms, and there are numerical values, and... In other words, all the levels and distinctions, all the levels and minute details in G-dliness, are there so that the created being’s very content can be connected to a G-dly matter. Right? Now, wait—we’re in the middle of a point. First I’m explaining, in general terms, what we’re trying to say here. Soon we’ll see that, on the contrary, this expresses an even deeper innovation. We’re not getting there yet. Let’s continue. We’re in the middle of a point. What?

1:37:09 Speaker 4 What’s the proof from [unclear]?

1:37:12 Speaker 1 From what we just said.

1:37:13 Speaker 4 I didn’t quite follow.

1:37:15 Speaker 1 What?

1:37:16 Speaker 4 I didn’t understand.

1:37:16 Speaker 1 That the details, too, express an aspect of G-dliness. The connection between a created being and the word of Havayah is not only through the general point that it was created from nothing, so that you have to step beyond your particular form. On that view, only the fact that you exist is connected to G-dliness, but your form isn’t. The Baal Shem Tov revealed that the form, too, is connected to G-dliness.

1:37:36 Speaker 4 [unclear]

1:37:39 Speaker 1 What?

1:37:41 Speaker 4 That’s the reasoning.

1:37:41 Speaker 1 He wanted the created being’s particular form to have a connection with a particular aspect of G-dliness. So He made it that G-dliness would have a defined form, so the created being could reveal that aspect. Let’s read section 8 inside, and we’ll understand it better. “And this will be the innovation in the time to come: it will be seen openly.” What will be new in the time to come? We will see it openly. “The glory of Hashem will be revealed, and all flesh together will see that the mouth of Hashem has spoken.” When Moshiach comes, there will be a revelation of G-dliness in a way that can be seen. Yes, “that the mouth of Hashem has spoken.” What, what, what does that mean? Very interesting. It’s not the Avos and Noach, but it’s similar, though not the same. “Not only will the glory of Hashem be revealed in the time to come; it will be evident that every created being came into existence from the Eibershter. For, in any case, all existing things, heaven and earth, exist only through [unclear].” When Moshiach comes, we won’t only see openly that Hakadosh Boruch Hu creates all created beings. That is something general throughout creation: we will see creation ex nihilo; we will see openly how everything is the word of Hashem. That is something general throughout the world. “This is a general matter that is the same in all created beings, regardless of what kind they are.” It makes no difference which created being it is. Its very existence, its particular identity—yes, every created being exists only because the Eibershter brings it into being. This is something general to all created beings: the created being’s existence is the Divine power. That, that is one thing. It is still not the main innovation of the time to come. That is “the glory of Hashem will be revealed.” The revelation of Hashem’s glory is the overall fact of creation ex nihilo: in the time to come it will be revealed that the whole world is the reality of Hakadosh

1:39:28 Speaker 1 Boruch Hu. The word of Hashem will be revealed. But in that respect, all created beings are the same. It doesn’t matter whether it was created, formed, or made; whether it is inanimate, plant, animal, or human. There are no differences. All created beings are inherently beyond comparison to Him, and Hakadosh Boruch Hu is all-powerful; He is the One who can bring them into being. In the time to come, we will see the word of Hashem with our physical eyes. So that will be the bittul of all created beings, the same bittul in all of them. But in the time to come there will be something more. “And all flesh together will see that the mouth of Hashem has spoken.” What will flesh see besides the revelation of Hashem’s glory? “All flesh will see that the mouth of Hashem has spoken.” What, exactly, has the mouth of Hashem spoken? Every created being, with its own particular qualities and nature—that is the real significance of the details. Not only the general point that it is a created being: its particular form, too, has the word of Hashem, Hashem’s particular utterance, invested in it. That will be the innovation of the time to come. Meaning, that’s how it appears at first glance—at least at first glance. In the time to come, we will see not only the bittul of all created beings; we will also see the uniqueness of each created being. In other words, we won’t only see that everything is nullified to Hakadosh Boruch Hu because everything is brought into being, everything is beyond comparison to Him, everything is creation ex nihilo. We will also see how each created being reveals G-dliness in its own distinct way. Each created being tells you something particular about Hakadosh Boruch Hu, because its particular form tells you something about Hakadosh Boruch Hu that another form cannot tell you. That is the work of enclothement; it is the work of, of, of memalei kol almin. It is the work of “the mouth of Hashem has spoken,” the word of Hashem, the particular form of the created being. Yes, but according to what we discussed earlier, why will this be revealed in the time to come? Why

1:41:29 Speaker 1 is it connected with the revelation of the time to come? What I mean is that in the time to come, the true unity of Hashem will be revealed, and from the perspective of the true unity of Hashem, there is no detail in the world that is not connected with G-dliness. In other words—and I’m adding this here, because apparently it relates to the avodah—I want to put it simply. I’m saying that enclothement is a descent, a contraction; that is memalei kol almin. On the contrary, creation ex nihilo is sovev kol almin; it is without limit, beyond comparison. That reveals—what? Bittul is much higher. By contrast, a particular form, memalei, has content, a quality, a particular meaning. That would seem to be a greater contraction. But on the other hand—on the contrary, on the contrary, on the contrary—there is the true unity of Hashem. What does the true unity of Hashem mean? That there is no detail that is not G-dliness. That is how it is from the perspective of Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s true unity. If I have to negate something—if I say that for this created being to be united with G-dliness, I have to negate its particular form, because its form is not G-dliness; only its existence in general is G-dliness, while its particular form is nullified—then something is lacking in the unity of Hashem. When can I speak of the true unity of Hashem? When no detail remains in the created being that is unconnected with G-dliness. That means that even the smallest details of the created being, even its particular form, must reveal G-dliness. If some detail in a created being does not reveal G-dliness, that means the unity of Hashem has not permeated every detail. In other words, in other words, that is “the mouth of Hashem has spoken.” When we say that the particular form of a created being is a revelation of G-dliness, that expresses a deeper dimension of the unity of Hashem. Do you understand what I said?

1:43:23 Speaker 5 Yes.

1:43:23 Speaker 1 That is a deeper dimension of the unity of Hashem. The depth of the unity of Hashem is that there cannot be any detail that is not... I’ll put it another way. I’ll put it another way. I’ll put it in terms of a situation, G-d forbid. A Jew learns about the unity of Hashem, the unity of Hashem, “there is nothing besides Him,” and he says that “there is nothing besides Him” is something you cannot understand intellectually. It is a matter of faith. You cannot understand it. “There is nothing besides Him.” “There is nothing besides Him” is a matter of faith; I cannot understand it with my intellect. Intellect is a descent, intellect is a contraction, intellect is a distinct existence, intellect contradicts “there is nothing besides Him.” Because intellect says, “I understand,” and if I understand, then there is an entity here; and if I am an entity, then what about “there is nothing besides Him”? So there is “there is nothing besides Him.” But here Chassidus comes and says no. Chassidus says faith is not enough. Chassidus says we need to understand intellectually, and faith alone is not enough, that there is nothing besides Him. So on the contrary: is the fact that faith is not enough a contradiction to the unity of Hashem, or does it help the unity of Hashem? The fact that a person not only believes that there is nothing besides Him but also understands it—what does that mean? Superficially, it means a descent, right? Because it is intellect. A contraction. Intellect—intellect is a distinct existence. But in truth, it is the opposite. If there is a place that “there is nothing besides Him” cannot reach, then there is a problem with “there is nothing besides Him.” If there is a place where “there is nothing besides Him” does not reach, that means it isn’t really “there is nothing besides Him.” There is a limit to it. Are you listening to me or not? If I say that my intellect cannot understand the unity of Hashem, that means there is a realm where the unity of Hashem is not present. If the unity of Hashem is true, if with Hakadosh Boruch Hu

1:45:47 Speaker 1 there truly is nothing besides Him, then, then, then intellect, too, is part of “there is nothing besides Him.” So, so, so it must permeate the intellect as well. If it cannot permeate the intellect, if the intellect has to be negated and broken, that means there is a place that “there is nothing besides Him” cannot reach. So where is it expressed that “there is nothing besides Him” is really true? In the fact that intellect, too, is a vessel for it. Powerful, powerful. Do you want to turn it off? Turn it off? Turn it off. Turn that thing off over there; it’s wasting time, it’s making the noise.

1:46:26 Speaker 6 No problem.

1:46:29 Speaker 1 No problem. Let’s see.

1:46:35 Speaker 6 No, no, it isn’t picking me up.

1:46:36 Speaker 1 Clarify.

1:46:38 Speaker 6 How is that itself a contradiction to “there is nothing besides Him”?

1:46:41 Speaker 1 A good question. [unclear] I’m saying this by way of—did you understand what I just said? Did anyone understand what I said, or was that just kabbolas ol? Huh? If the mind can’t understand “there is nothing besides Him,” that means there is something besides Him. There’s a place Hakadosh Boruch Hu doesn’t reach: He doesn’t reach the mind. You have to set the mind aside. But “there is nothing besides Him” means that everything is G-dliness. If everything is G-dliness, then the mind is G-dliness too. So that itself—“there is nothing besides Him”—demands that the mind, too, understand that there is nothing besides Him. Because if it’s completely true, it’s true from the mind’s perspective as well. The same thing is being said here. When we get to the specific form, it won’t merely be the unity of Hashem in its fullest perfection. There will be the revelation of “all flesh will see that the mouth of Hashem has spoken.” What does the Rebbe say? “That the mouth of Hashem has spoken” is not a lesser degree of the unity of Hashem. On the contrary, it is the depth of the unity of Hashem. True unity of Hashem doesn’t mean you have to negate the specific form and say it doesn’t matter. On the contrary, everything is G-dliness. The specific form is G-dliness too. There isn’t a single detail that isn’t G-dliness. So the Baal Shem Tov’s revelation that there is a particular form even in the word of Hashem is not a descent; it isn’t a contraction. It is the depth of the unity of Hashem: every detail in the world reveals G-dliness, even through its own particulars. And where does that come from? From the Beis Hamikdash. In the Beis Hamikdash, it will become clear that every detail there reveals the heavenly Beis Hamikdash. You’ll look at every detail in the Beis Hamikdash and see how that detail reveals the Beis Hamikdash above. And from the Beis Hamikdash, this will shine throughout the world too: the revelation of the unity of Hashem won’t merely be—

1:48:35 Speaker 1 No, it will be in such a way that not a single detail in creation remains unconnected to G-dliness. Now, what else did you want to ask?

1:48:43 Speaker 7 Could it come from the will?

1:48:45 Speaker 1 What?

1:48:46 Speaker 7 From the will. All the details come from His own will.

1:48:49 Speaker 1 But will is a negative concept. Will isn’t a reason. Will isn’t a reason. Will means there is no reason for it.

1:48:56 Speaker 7 That’s just how it is.

1:48:57 Speaker 1 That’s what will is. So, you see, will is defined in negative terms. Will means you don’t have a reason; this is simply what I want. I want these details. So, you see, the details aren’t really details in their own right; they’re an expression of my will. But then, you see, it’s not their own defining character. So will cannot explain the unity of Hashem, because ultimately, with will, the unity of Hashem comes about through bittul, not through union. There is no union in will. Will says, “Because that’s what I want,” not because you really have a reason of your own. But when I see that it does have a reason, that its reason is a matter of G-dliness, and that G-dliness is expressed through that reason—that is the bittul of the unity of Hashem.

1:49:44 Speaker 7 Um, it’s like the thing before, about [unclear]. You can have it be a good thing, but then there’s a descent. So what do you mean? There’s [unclear]. There’s a union in the way that they have to be [unclear] in itself, so low, right? That is not union. It’s the same thing.

1:50:07 Speaker 1 So that is the distinction between the external aspect and the inner aspect. The descent is the aspect of memalei as it appears externally. The descent is on the outside, and externally it is a descent. Compared with sovev, memalei is a descent. But in truth, on the contrary, memalei is the depth of the unity of Hashem. In fact, the root of memalei reaches higher than sovev, because it is specifically in memalei that the unity stemming from the Essence is revealed. From the perspective of the Essence, there is no need to negate anything. So from the perspective of the Essence, the specific form itself is G-dliness; you don’t have to negate it. Sovev negates. The Essence does not negate. In the Essence, the specific forms are included, not by way of negation. So the content itself is G-dliness. Externally, having particular content is a contraction. But inwardly, on the contrary, that content is the depth of the unity of Hashem. How do you look at the particulars? How do you look at G-dliness permeating the particulars? You can see it as a descent. That’s how it looks from the outside. But in truth, it isn’t. This expresses the completeness of the unity of Hashem as it is from the perspective of the Essence. That is why there is no detail unconnected to G-dliness. The content itself is connected to G-dliness.

1:51:19 Speaker 7 Hashem. But from the created being’s perspective, [unclear] its relationship with the other is a sense that it doesn’t change; it becomes its life, its life. From the created being’s perspective.

1:51:31 Speaker 1 Not necessarily. That’s the particular point of creation ex nihilo, but creation ex nihilo is only one detail. It’s the aspect of the unity of Hashem connected with the Infinite and the unlimited. It isn’t necessarily so.

1:51:42 Speaker 7 No, it’s unity. It’s a kind of wholeness that exists.

1:51:46 Speaker 1 Fine. Okay. But there are two movements: a movement of bittul and a movement of union. Creation ex nihilo is connected with the movement of bittul in this matter. Here we’re talking about union. In general, this is one of the fundamental ideas the Rebbe spoke about in the later years. If you look in Likkutei Sichos, you’ll see this subject coming up repeatedly, in different forms, in several sichos from those volumes. Even in volume 29 itself, there are, as far as I remember, at least three sichos on the same subject. Volume 29 has this sicha; it has the sicha about the Beis Hamikdash that I mentioned to you, “From the Luminary, This One Saw”; and there’s also the sicha about [unclear]. They all approach the same point in different styles and with different illustrations. But the fundamental innovation is this: the very form I see is not [unclear]. On the contrary, the truth of Hakadosh Boruch Hu is expressed in the fact that the specific form itself is connected to Him.

1:52:46 Speaker 8 Is the fact that I don’t reach G-dliness also part of it?

1:52:49 Speaker 1 Huh?

1:52:49 Speaker 8 That particular detail—that I see a state that doesn’t [unclear] G-dliness—is that also part of it?

1:52:52 Speaker 1 That too.

1:52:57 Speaker 8 …

1:52:57 Speaker 1 That’s already connected with [unclear], isn’t it? Huh? Or are we bringing up nonsense for no reason? We had enough of that in the winter—summer and winter. Anyway, the Rebbe says—are you keeping up, guys? We’re getting into advanced territory now. Just a little more. The Rebbe says, “And in a similar way to what…”

1:53:20 Speaker 8 I’m looking.

1:53:22 Speaker 1 “And in a similar way with great tzaddikim.” This—wow, now we’re coming to an incredible passage. This is a revelation of G-dliness. What does it mean? I don’t understand half a word of it, but let’s read it. It’s something utterly heavenly. The Rebbe says, “And in a similar way”—he’s precise in saying “in a similar way”—to what we find with great tzaddikim. Great tzaddikim see even now everything we’ve been discussing. What is the Rebbe talking about? As is known about the Maggid, he looked at an object—Samach-Daled. I told you we’d come back to Samach-Daled. The Maggid looked at an object made by a craftsman and saw within it the particular qualities of the person who had physically made it, something from something. All the more so. All the more so. Guys, if you’re not listening, you won’t understand what’s going on here. All the more so! In other words, if he saw the craftsman who physically made it, down to his particulars, then certainly—all the more so—and indeed, this follows from that. Therefore, he saw the word of Hashem, the word of Hashem, and not… That’s it. What’s the story with the Maggid? What did he see? What do we learn from this? That certainly he saw the word of Hashem, and that means it’s like… one day we’ll all see it.

1:55:44 Speaker 8 Are we talking about the present or the future?

1:55:47 Speaker 1 Why do you say the present? Guys, who remembers the class by…

1:56:04 Speaker 8 Yes, he spoke about that. He said it.

1:56:06 Speaker 1 Yes.

1:56:07 Speaker 8 I remember, I remember, I remember.

1:56:10 Speaker 1 What’s his name? Posner. Well, what was his point?

1:56:17 Speaker 8 The Maggid was able to see the created being, okay? He was able to see creation ex nihilo, the created being. The question they raised was about the craftsman: each time he makes something, there’s a new permutation of letters. It’s a new permutation of letters, which is making something from something. The only way he could see that making of something from something was if he first saw the man’s letters of creation ex nihilo. Because he knew his letters and he knew the man’s letters—which is the creation ex nihilo part—he could then see the change involved in making something from something.

1:56:50 Speaker 1 Wow. Sounds good. I would put it this way. I think—maybe this is what Posner said. I wasn’t at Posner’s class. I’ve heard this sicha several times, but I’ll try to give the plain meaning, in light of what we’ve been discussing here. What was the story? The Maggid saw, in a vessel, that the craftsman who had made it was blind in one eye. What’s so special about this story? What’s so special about it? After all, the meaning seems straightforward. And what does it have to do with this? The Rebbe’s students cite it as an example of the power of the maker being present in what he makes, and the Rebbe... It was a matter of ruach hakodesh. The Maggid had ruach hakodesh. Fine. Imagine that the Rebbe says that the vessel brought to him was made by Chananya. He has ruach hakodesh: he knows something nobody told him, but through ruach hakodesh he knew where it came from. But that’s not the point. What is the precise wording? He saw it in the vessel. It doesn’t say the Maggid knew it through ruach hakodesh. The Maggid looked at the vessel, and in the vessel he saw that the person who made it was blind in one eye. What does that mean? It means the vessel reveals it. What did we just say? What was new about the unity of Hashem as revealed by the Baal Shem Tov? Enclothement. The Baal Shem Tov revealed that Hakadosh Boruch Hu not only brings things into being in a way that is beyond comparison, creating something from nothing. What else? The Baal Shem Tov revealed that Hakadosh Boruch Hu brings things into being through enclothement—that the word of Hashem is within the created being. Right? The word of Hashem is within the created being in an inner way, and therefore every detail that occurs within the vessel,

1:59:41 Speaker 1 within the created being, reveals something about G-dliness. There is no detail in a created being... So when a craftsman comes and works on the material, and makes something out of a piece of stone, or makes—look, the craftsman took a piece of wood and made it into a particular object. So there really is enclothement here. That enclothement, too, is a Divine power. On the one hand, the craftsman makes it, but the craftsman is revealing something. The wood became a table because the wood has the capacity to become a table, and there is a word of Hashem associated with a table. In other words, when this wood was a tree, it was called a tree. Now it has become a table. So besides being a piece of wood, it also has the form of a table. That means there is a particular Divine power that gave it the content of a table. Yes, and the person who built the table is the one who revealed that content. Right? So a person who can see inwardly, who can see the Divine light as it comes through enclothement, has this power of the Baal Shem Tov: he sees not only creation from nothing in general. He sees the particular enclothement of the word of Hashem within the created being. When he looks at a table, he sees every detail in it, and how each detail is connected to a particular aspect of G-dliness. So he also sees that the person who brought about this change in the table, who gave the table this form, had a particular impairment—he was blind in one eye. He saw all of that within the table. In other words, the table’s form and all its details reveal every detail of what went into the table. Every bit of work, everything done to the table, is all there within

2:01:48 Speaker 1 the table. And that’s why the Rebbe says: What does it mean that this isn’t a physical matter? If someone is blind in one eye, that isn’t something you can simply point to in the vessel. Physically, that fact isn’t apparent. Yes, there is something in the vessel. Again, it isn’t on account of the physical; it’s on account of the spiritual—of the way it was brought into being. In other words, there is something about this vessel that took this form because the craftsman who made it was blind in one eye. So even in the combinations, in the way the vessel came into being, there are differences. Just as I can look at the created being, at its details—I can look at the vessel and see every detail and the Divine power within it—I can also see the progression of that Divine power, how it passed through the craftsman. Further, this too is part of the same idea: this detail too is included in the word of Hashem. Something like that. But it doesn’t affect its physical form. Apparently it does affect the physical form in some way. It affects this vessel in a way that... Obviously it probably does have an effect, but it’s the kind of effect only the Maggid could see. Not everyone can see it. Exactly. That was the story. That’s the story. I don’t know. Do I know a story about that? He was lying in bed. That’s a different story. It’s down here in the footnote. Why doesn’t he bring the story of the Alter Rebbe? The one we have—why doesn’t he bring the story of the Alter Rebbe? Why? Where doesn’t he bring it? What? It’s simply that he... Not only the idea that... Ah, that even the details subsequently brought about by a person are present in the overall process of creation. That is seen specifically in the story of the Maggid. Interesting—he does bring it here in footnote fifty-seven, the story

2:04:42 Speaker 1 of the Alter Rebbe. Yes. But that’s... Yes. Why, what? Yes. No, it’s the same idea, except that here there are more details. One could say that this is [unclear]. That’s the point. Yes, I said that. I said it right. It’s the same idea. I arrived at what the great scholars said. One could say this is [unclear]. Why does it say “brings into being”? Why does it say “brings into being”? Well. There are two things here... Huh? How? No, I think that in the sicha he writes “brings into being” in contrast to the craftsman, who doesn’t bring anything into being. He isn’t bringing something into being in relation to [unclear]. He says, all the more so: the craftsman didn’t make the wood. It’s only a matter of its form. All the more so when He brings it into being—that’s its entire existence. It’s much more than that. There’s no... It’s the very existence itself, not just its form, not just one particular aspect. In other words, it’s not only creation from nothing; it’s also... It’s not only something from something, but also something from nothing. But I don’t know if there’s anything more there. One could say that [unclear], and this is the Beis Hamikdash, and [unclear] in the category of a garment. This relates to the level of the indwelling of the Shechinah in the Beis Hamikdash, and its physical part was an extension of that Beis Hamikdash, according to the measure of holiness enclothed within it. So all of this—that something in the world should contain it in this way—where does it come from? It comes from the fact that this is how it is in the Beis Hamikdash. There’s a hidden point here, everyone. I understand, I understand. Okay. Huh? [Unclear], [unclear]. Now we come to the part of the sicha about avodah. If you’ve made it this far, hang on, because now comes the main part of the class. How does all this relate to the actual point? What was the Berdichever’s parable? Everything

2:06:57 Speaker 1 was so that the son would learn to change his behavior. The father shows him the garment so that the child will behave differently. So we have to say that everything we’ve learned in the sicha until now—that on Shabbos Chazon Hakadosh Boruch Hu shows us the Beis Hamikdash not as a house but as a garment—is meant to make us behave differently. That is why we need all these explanations: to understand that the Beis Hamikdash is not a house; it is a garment. What’s the connection? What do these two things have to do with each other? This is where it says, “One could say...” So this clarifies why the Berdichever emphasizes, in his parable, showing the child a garment: it also brings out the distinctive feature of [unclear] a garment, as discussed above. On Shabbos Chazon, each and every Jew is shown not only the third Beis Hamikdash, but also that the third Beis Hamikdash will be like a garment, with every detail revealing G-dliness. And where is this shown? This is what we are shown. We are shown the Beis Hamikdash not as a house but as a garment. We are shown the Beis Hamikdash of the future with this particular feature: every detail of the future Beis Hamikdash will reveal the Shechinah in a particular way. How does that relate to a person’s avodah? So what does Shabbos Chazon have to do with the third Beis Hamikdash and the garment? Why does it matter whether we see it specifically as a garment or as a house? In the idea of a house there is an advantage. The third Beis Hamikdash, as discussed above, is permanent and will stand forever, because it is a building made by Hakadosh Boruch Hu—not on the level of the two earlier Batei Mikdash, which were [unclear].

2:08:48 Speaker 1 Its construction will endure forever in the future. Yes, that is the advantage of the Third Beis Hamikdash. They say that in the future, and they show us that the Third Beis Hamikdash will be in the form of a garment. What does that mean? We can understand it from the content of the analogy. Let’s look at the analogy, and from there we’ll understand the point. The father shows the child the garment from time to time, at appointed intervals. Why does the father show him the garment from time to time? What does it say in the Maggid’s teaching? “To accustom him to walk the straight path, until it becomes like second nature to him.” Everyone, there’s a revolution in avodas Hashem here. The father doesn’t just want the son to behave well. The father wants avodas Hashem, good behavior, to become like second nature to him, something natural for the child. He doesn’t want him to behave just to get the garment and then get it dirty again two days later. He wants good behavior to be his nature, and then he’ll receive it. What does that mean in avodah? Here the Rebbe says something wonderful, a tremendous insight. When avodas Hashem is only iskafya—sorry, kabbolas ol. If a person serves Hashem only through iskafya or only through kabbolas ol, has walking the straight path really become like second nature? If your avodas Hashem comes only from kabbolas ol, it hasn’t become your nature. On the contrary, your nature isn’t involved. Kabbolas ol means breaking your nature. It is the opposite of nature. He doesn’t want to serve Hashem, but he compels himself to fulfill Hashem’s will against his nature and his wishes. So it goes against his nature; it hasn’t become his nature. That’s clear. So that isn’t what is meant.

2:10:51 Speaker 1 Again. Everyone, we need to take stock now. What did we say earlier? What is the difference between creation ex nihilo and the continuous creation that the Baal Shem Tov revealed? What did we have without the Baal Shem Tov? The Midrash. What did the Baal Shem Tov reveal about the Midrash? From the Midrash, we understand that Hakadosh Boruch Hu brings everything into being at every moment—continuous creation, moment by moment. Kabbolas ol. The world has no inherent connection to G-dliness. On the contrary, the world is an independent existence. But Hakadosh Boruch Hu, Who can do anything, can create it. So its entire existence depends on bittul. What does that mean in avodah? Kabbolas ol. You are not an independent existence; your own wishes do not determine what you do. On the contrary, you want something else, but you submit yourself to the Supernal Will. Against your nature. Likewise, creation ex nihilo runs counter to the world’s apparent existence, counter to nature. So if we were to see the Beis Hamikdash as a house, that would mean the world has no inherent connection to G-dliness; its connection comes from the fact that it was created ex nihilo. What does that mean in avodah? Kabbolas ol. Kabbolas ol is not natural. On the contrary, by nature I’m not interested, but I force myself. So it doesn’t become like second nature. Fine. But that still isn’t enough. How does the Rebbe go further? Even when a person serves Hashem with his middos. Let’s take the other extreme. A person serves Hashem not through kabbolas ol. On the contrary, he refines his middos so that they will be directed toward Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He serves Hashem with his middos; he develops a love of Hashem and middos that serve Hashem. That’s no longer kabbolas ol; it’s avodah that comes from within himself. But if it comes from the natural inclinations of his middos—by nature he is a person of chesed. He has a natural inclination,

2:12:55 Speaker 1 the middah of chesed, and he works with that middah to transform his natural traits, so that his chesed will be for Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He refines his middos. Even then, walking the straight path in G-dliness has not become like second nature. Why? His avodas Hashem is limited by the natural inclination of his animal soul. So here, too, avodas Hashem has not become his nature. The person has taken his nature and directed its chesed toward G-dliness. For example, by nature he tends toward chesed and love. He is naturally inclined to give and to love. He works on himself so that instead of love, desire, and longing for things of this world, his love takes this form: instead of loving this world, he loves Hashem. But ultimately, this avodah follows his nature. The moment he needs to turn that nature toward yirah, his natural inclinations come into play, and it turns out that avodas Hashem has still not become like second nature to him. His natural traits remain part of his own existence, something separate, as it were, from G-dliness. Wow! What is the underlying point? What did we say about the First and Second Beis Hamikdash? They saw how every detail came from Hashem. What did we explain in the class? What did we explain earlier in the sicha? What did the Rebbe explain? In the First Beis Hamikdash, too, they knew that everything came from Hashem. Every detail in the Beis Hamikdash corresponded to something Above. Right. But they knew there were two things here: the physical reality and the spiritual reality. The physical reality corresponded to the spiritual reality. But it was still something distinct; there was a separate existence. And that itself meant that G-dliness was

2:15:15 Speaker 1 something additional. That’s what we explained earlier in the sicha. It was something additional, and therefore you didn’t see every single detail expressing G-dliness. No, not every single detail. There were things I could see and things I couldn’t see, because in practice there was an existence here apart from G-dliness. Similarly, the Rebbe says with regard to avodah: If a person serves Hashem from below upward—now, from below upward—I have my nature, and I use my nature for G-dliness. Yes. A person says, “I’m a created being; I have my own [unclear].” So I have my nature, and I take that nature and use it to serve Hakadosh Boruch Hu. “All your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven,” and so on. In other words, you use your own existence to serve Hashem. So what is the foundation? The foundation is that you have your own existence, and that is your nature. Now you bring G-dliness into it: you use it, work with it, refine it, so that it serves not desire but G-dliness. Yet there always remains my own existence, which serves Hashem. There is something additional here, and therefore there may be certain areas where he cannot serve Hashem. The moment he’s asked to go against his nature and do something—then it no longer fits him, and he has to—so it remains something additional. That isn’t called avodas Hashem becoming my entire existence. When can we say that avodas Hashem has become his nature? That is what we want to reach on Shabbos Chazon. What does the father want to bring about in his son? And what is the avodah here? It is for G-dliness, for avodas Hashem—not my nature—to permeate his entire existence, until no part of the person remains that is not avodas Hashem. Then it

2:17:20 Speaker 1 is called “like second nature.” Ah, who understood what the Rebbe is saying here? Again. There are three ways to serve Hakadosh Boruch Hu. There are three ways to serve Hakadosh Boruch Hu. One way is through kabbolas ol. Another way is through your nature. Are you listening? Again. One way to serve Hakadosh Boruch Hu is through kabbolas ol. Another is through your nature. And there is a third way: avodas Hashem becomes your nature. There are three ways to serve Hashem. In one, a person serves Hashem through kabbolas ol. Kabbolas ol means: what I want doesn’t count; on the contrary,

2:18:24 Speaker 9 it goes against my nature.

2:18:25 Speaker 1 Against my nature. You break yourself. What does Hakadosh Boruch Hu want? Not what do I want. I submit myself, so it isn’t natural. At the other extreme, it’s the opposite: I serve Hashem with my nature. I look for what my nature is, and I use that for Hashem. So here the emphasis is on my own existence. But your existence is not G-dliness. You use your existence for G-dliness, but in practice it remains your nature, your own makeup. So you will always be limited by the rules of your nature. The moment you’re asked to do something that doesn’t quite suit your nature, you become confused, because you have not truly moved beyond your own makeup. So that cannot mean that avodas Hashem has become your nature. What is the correct, true way? The third level. It doesn’t start with me; it starts with G-dliness.

2:19:18 Speaker 9 Divine light.

2:19:19 Speaker 1 It begins with G-dliness. But what does that mean? That G-dliness is my entire reality, not G-dliness that breaks my reality. Kabbolas ol, bittul, unity. G-dliness is the true reality of my qualities, too. So there is no detail of my qualities that does not accord with G-dliness, and whatever Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants becomes my nature. If Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants love, there will be love. If He wants awe, there will be awe.

2:19:49 Speaker 9 [unclear].

2:19:51 Speaker 1 I don’t know what Avraham Avinu has to do with this.

2:19:52 Speaker 9 Well, with Avraham and Yitzchak and all that... it belonged to him; it came naturally.

2:19:57 Speaker 1 I’m not sure Avraham Avinu reached this.

2:20:01 Speaker 9 Why is that relevant?

2:20:02 Speaker 1 I don’t know if Avraham Avinu reached this.

2:20:03 Speaker 9 What is the avodah of the second level?

2:20:04 Speaker 1 Huh?

2:20:05 Speaker 9 What is the avodah of the second level? That his character traits are...

2:20:10 Speaker 1 The second level is from below upward. So you are still connected to your nature. You have your own nature.

2:20:22 Speaker 9 Nature.

2:20:23 Speaker 1 You have your own nature, your animal nature, and you use it to serve Hashem. That is much more—it is something very great. Chas veshalom, we are not belittling it. But it is not the unity of Hashem. You remain an independent existence. You use your nature to serve Hashem. So what is the foundation? The foundation is your nature, and your nature is flesh and blood. You are limited, and so there is a “you.”

2:20:57 Speaker 9 So that isn’t it.

2:20:59 Speaker 1 That there is no “you.”

2:21:00 Speaker 9 I don’t know what he means. [unclear] is when... that’s what he sees. It’s something he sees.

2:21:06 Speaker 1 What do you mean? [unclear]?

2:21:08 Speaker 9 Something he sees.

2:21:10 Speaker 1 What’s the question?

2:21:10 Speaker 9 His nature is holiness. What does he need to do?

2:21:14 Speaker 1 Your nature is not holiness.

2:21:15 Speaker 9 No, my nature is that of the second level.

2:21:18 Speaker 1 No, it isn’t holiness. A nature of kindness is a nature: he was born with a kind nature. He was born with a kind nature, not with holiness. He was born kind because he’s a good person; he likes sharing with his friends. That has no connection to G-dliness.

2:21:36 Speaker 9 His nature is holiness.

2:21:37 Speaker 1 When he grew up, he took his nature and used it for holiness, and then he transformed it into holiness. Very beautiful. But because that is the foundation—because it is your nature—you are limited by the form of your own existence. What does that mean in practice? If at some point they tell you, “Now you need to change your avodah,” you’ll go out of your mind. You’ll say, “No, I’m not willing. That’s not what I signed up for. Don’t ask me to do something I don’t like. What I like—I’ve done something tremendous: I took my nature and turned it into service of Hashem.” But that is built entirely upon your nature. It is your nature that you use to serve Hashem. It does not mean that serving Hashem has become your nature. It is your nature that you use for serving Hashem, and it therefore has the limitations of a human being. What are a human being’s limitations? That G-dliness is not his entire reality. What is the proof that G-dliness is not his entire reality? The proof is that if something does not fit his nature, if a situation arises, he can no longer do it. His avodah, his service of Hashem, must come from G-dliness, yet not be in a manner of kabbolas ol. What are these two extremes? Let’s take a young man in yeshivah, yes? They give him things to do. There’s a chassidishe young man with kabbolas ol. He has, as they say, erased his own existence. He doesn’t exist. He has nothing; he has no desire for anything. He has given himself over to Tomchei Temimim, and whatever the Rebbe says, he’ll do. Whatever the Rebbe... [unclear]. That’s wonderful, yes? Kabbolas ol. But ask him, “Where are you

2:24:00 Speaker 1 in all this?” “I’m not here. What do you mean, where am I? Who am I? I don’t exist at all. I’ve nullified myself. I don’t exist. I’m not here.” If you don’t exist, that means you have broken your own reality. That is called negating your reality. When are you connected to Hakadosh Boruch Hu? When you run away from yourself. The moment you return to yourself, you let go; you’re not interested, you have no desire for any of it. You’re just swimming against the current of your nature. That is one approach. The second is the opposite: a person recognizes his qualities, takes those qualities and uses them to serve Hashem. It sounds wonderful. What is the problem with this approach? The problem is that he is still defined by his nature. The moment he has to break his nature, or step outside it and then return—well, that’s difficult. So, as the Rebbe says, in the end this, too, means that G-dliness is one thing and you are another. Your nature is not G-dliness; it is your nature, which you use for G-dliness. Here we want to gain both things. We want it to be service of Hashem. It is not your nature, not you; it is G-dliness. And G-dliness becomes your nature. It is not that your nature becomes G-dliness—G-dliness becomes your form, your reality. That is the true unity of Hashem; it is the revelation of the time to come. The revelation of the time to come is that Hashem’s unity will be revealed within the bounds of reality, not by breaking reality, but within the qualities of the created being. What does that mean in avodah? It means that service of Hashem—G-dliness, not my nature—becomes my form, becomes my quality. Consequently, every detail of who I am is connected with G-dliness. There is nothing that is not connected

2:26:09 Speaker 1 with G-dliness.

2:26:10 Speaker 10 If the G-dliness comes forth, then that’s it—it becomes his reality. There is still an existence within G-dliness.

2:26:16 Speaker 1 How?

2:26:17 Speaker 10 It’s the same thing we said earlier.

2:26:18 Speaker 1 No.

2:26:19 Speaker 10 Just pour it out.

2:26:20 Speaker 1 No.

2:26:21 Speaker 10 Because there is something higher than reality.

2:26:22 Speaker 1 No, no, no, no. On the contrary: then reality itself is G-dliness. It is not a reality outside G-dliness. It is like we explained about the Third Beis Hamikdash: every detail is permeated with the unity of Hashem. There is nothing outside that unity. So the form itself, too, is the unity of Hashem. Let’s look at the sicha. We haven’t finished. Here, let’s read.

2:26:49 Speaker 10 Not that...

2:26:51 Speaker 1 Yes. Let’s look at the sicha, everyone. One moment, one moment—before we ask questions. What does it say inside? “But when he works on himself to give himself over completely to another...” When a person brings himself to devote himself completely to serving Hashem, “the service of Hashem becomes his entire being.” Serving Hashem becomes his entire being. “His love of Hashem, for example, is not a matter of using his natural inclination for holiness.” For him, loving Hashem does not mean using his natural inclination for holiness. It’s the reverse: “Rather, his entire being...” It’s not, “I use my love for Hashem.” What does it mean? What does it mean? Love of Hashem is my entire reality. There is nothing else besides love of Hashem. There is no nature of my own. Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants love of Hashem, so there is love of Hashem. The entire reality of love is love of Hashem. There is no love apart from love of Hashem. That is the whole meaning of love. It’s somewhat similar to a teaching the Rebbe discusses in the second supplement—it’s in the sichos there—the difference between “I was created to serve my Creator” and “I was created solely to serve my Creator.” You know the teaching. “I was created to serve my Creator” means there is an “I,” and what is it for? To serve my Creator. “I was created solely to...” From the outset, there is no existence apart from serving my Creator. What does existence mean? “I was not created...” He has no existence of his own. From the outset, there is service of my Creator, and therefore there is an existence. Along those lines, there is love of Hashem, and therefore I exist so that there can be love of Hashem. There is awe of Hashem. In other words, reality does not begin with me; it begins Above, and that becomes my reality,

2:28:57 Speaker 1 That love of Hashem becomes my reality. That is what the Rebbe says: the whole matter of love... becomes holy middos. And since holiness, Hakadosh Boruch Hu, has become his entire reality, and serving Hashem is his very essence—again, the wording is precise: serving Hashem, G-dliness, becomes the shape of his reality—all his middos are transformed into holiness. It is not just love, not just nature, not just an inclination. It is all G-dliness. Because every individual faculty and middah in him is completely connected with his soul. No part of the person remains unconnected to G-dliness. It makes no difference what his inclination is. He does it completely, whether it has to do with love of Hashem or with fear and awe of Hashem. Walking the straight path becomes second nature, and there is no fear that he might revert to his old ways, because it has become second nature. Then a person is on solid ground. As long as it is kabbolas ol, you cannot be sure. That force might come back again, and then nothing is left. Even when you use your nature to serve Hashem, because it is tied to your nature, the animal nature might overcome you again and spoil it. But if the avodah is that serving Hashem, G-dliness, permeates my reality, so that not a single part of my reality remains unconnected to G-dliness, then the opposite cannot happen. Then it becomes my nature. Then, then it becomes my nature. It becomes my essence. Something else is no longer possible. So he cannot revert to his old ways, and that is when Moshiach can

2:30:36 Speaker 1 come. Only when that is our way of serving Hashem are we in a state of Geulah. Guys, we have a lot of work to do.

2:30:45 Speaker 11 So it is not that I negate my own reality, because Hashem is in my reality—

2:30:50 Speaker 1 G-dliness permeates reality. G-dliness becomes my reality. G-dliness does not negate my reality; G-dliness becomes my reality.

2:31:00 Speaker 12 What does that mean—that what He wants, I do not want? That what He wants, I do not need?

2:31:06 Speaker 1 If that sounds better to you, then I don’t know.

2:31:09 Speaker 12 You understand what that means. Here, with the—

2:31:11 Speaker 1 Yes.

2:31:12 Speaker 12 To take effect. What does that mean?

2:31:13 Speaker 11 That it is Hashem’s will.

2:31:15 Speaker 12 Yes, really. What does it mean that it is not a will?

2:31:18 Speaker 1 That is something for tzaddikim; the Rebbe doesn’t...

2:31:22 Speaker 11 His avodah won’t come in bursts; it will be his [unclear], it will...

2:31:27 Speaker 12 Even before the Tzemach Tzedek, what’s the difference between doing everything and having kabbolas ol? Like, before the Tzemach Tzedek, before the Tzemach Tzedek was going, before the Tzemach Tzedek, what’s the difference—the distinction—between kabbolas ol and doing everything? Like, what’s the—

2:31:41 Speaker 1 They’re doing everything.

2:31:43 Speaker 12 No, that’s the Tzemach Tzedek already. I’m saying before the Tzemach Tzedek. What’s the difference between giving yourself over and, like, accepting it upon yourself too?

2:31:52 Speaker 1 I think that with kabbolas ol, I step outside myself in order to accept the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven. Kabbolas ol is a movement of negation. I say, “I don’t want to, but I make myself do it.” You see, kabbolas ol involves compulsion. There is a sense of negation here. Going further, devotion is not negation. Devotion means... not that I cease to exist. It is not, “I don’t do what I want; I do what You want.” “Nullify your will before His will”—this is “Make your will like His will.” What He wants—that, that is my reality. G-dliness is my entire reality. There is no other reality. So you say this is for tzaddikim? What do you mean, for tzaddikim? The Rebbe says that this is the revelation of Moshiach, and that we are shown the Beis Hamikdash to give us the strength to reach this avodah. That means it is not just for tzaddikim. Everyone can; it is possible.

2:33:11 Speaker 14 A tzaddik from another world.

2:33:12 Speaker 1 That is the whole avodah of a shliach.

2:33:13 Speaker 14 It is a matter of a garment.

2:33:14 Speaker 1 Huh?

2:33:15 Speaker 14 It is a matter of a garment.

2:33:16 Speaker 1 Who is this tzaddik from another world? You’re worrying about tzaddikim. Let’s finish, let’s finish, let’s finish. And therefore [unclear] why it is shown specifically as a garment. Now we understand why we see the Beis Hamikdash as a garment. Because then one sees the connection to Hashem not only as with a house—a general connection—but as with a garment: every detail of it matters to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The analogy of a garment is used to emphasize that what is asked of us is to be like a garment: every detail of our reality should be permeated with Hashem’s house. For this gives strength for the avodah that must bring out the point that a Jew’s connection with Hashem should not be merely a general connection, but a connection in every detail. What is asked of us—what Shabbos Chazon tells us—is that a person must not devote himself to Hakadosh Boruch Hu only in a general way. That devotion must extend to the details. Like a garment, it should encompass all his individual faculties: his intellect—his entire being should understand G-dliness. What is his intellect for? Only for G-dliness. [Unclear.] His love, all of it [unclear]—and this is an analogy for the middos. Then no other feeling, one that is, G-d forbid, not love, has any place in him. It is no longer possible for there to be something other than love. And through this, walking the straight path becomes his nature. It becomes his nature, and [unclear] a revelation [unclear].

2:34:52 Speaker 1 [Unclear.] Now, note sixty-five. Do you see it at the end? He gets to it in the end; it took time. [Unclear.] This is the resolution of the matter explained inside. Oops. And then I can make it second nature as well: his nature, his very being, his individual nature, will be to serve Hashem; his connection [unclear]. That’s it. [Unclear.]

2:35:32 Speaker 14 He says that what needs to become second nature is not the nature itself.

2:35:34 Speaker 1 No.

2:35:35 Speaker 14 It is the nature, because it is like—this is Hashem’s nature.

2:35:38 Speaker 1 That’s it. So the interplay is the revelation of two worlds.