An explanation, according to Chassidus, of the reason the shofar is not blown on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos

00:01 Speaker 1 Today we’re going to discuss the question of Rosh Hashanah when it falls on Shabbos: “In the Beis Hamikdash they would blow the shofar, but not elsewhere.” We’ll discuss it from the perspective of Chassidus. There is also a great deal to learn here in the straightforward study of the subject—in the Mishnah, the Gemara, Rashi, Tosafos, and the commentators. There is a lot to examine. The Rebbe’s teachings also address the halachic side of this question in several places. There is a sicha in Likkutei Sichos, volume 7, a Pesach sicha, where the Rebbe discusses several aspects of it according to nigleh. Why only on Rosh Hashanah? Why not on Pesach? It’s interesting. The Rebbe brings several explanations according to nigleh and then rejects them. It’s a wonderful sicha, with many notes on the subject. There is also a discussion by the Rebbe about the Alter Rebbe. The Rebbe wrote to Rabbi Zevin that the Alter Rebbe has a surprising innovation in this matter, in the laws of Rosh Hashanah. Rabbi Zevin asked, “What is surprising?” He didn’t see anything surprising: the Alter Rebbe doesn’t seem to offer any innovation; he just copies the Rambam’s wording. The Rebbe shows him that there is something very surprising there, and there is an extended correspondence about it between the Rebbe and Rabbi Zevin. There is also another letter on the subject in Igros Kodesh. In the Reshimos published after Gimmel Tammuz, there is a special, more extensive entry in which the Rebbe explains this matter at great length, simply according to nigleh. So there is plenty to discuss in nigleh too, but today we’ll speak a little about its treatment in Chassidus. We are fortunate to have teachings on it from all the Rebbeim. We’ll start with the Alter Rebbe himself, in Likkutei Torah. There is the maamar beginning “To Understand the Mishnah: When Rosh Hashanah Falls on Shabbos.”

02:16 Speaker 1 The Alter Rebbe said this maamar on Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbos in 5571. In other words, it is among the maamarim the Alter Rebbe said quite late, at the end of 5571. It was already in his final period, in his last years. The maamar was printed in Likkutei Torah, and there is also another version of the same maamar from the Mitteler Rebbe, printed in the Siddur Im Dach. It is the same maamar, but with variations, additions, and differences between the two versions. The maamar in Likkutei Torah is apparently in the Tzemach Tzedek’s version, like the rest of Likkutei Torah—that is, it includes the Tzemach Tzedek’s glosses. The maamar in the Siddur is the Mitteler Rebbe’s version. Presumably they were both there that Rosh Hashanah in 5571. There are also several maamarim on “When Rosh Hashanah Falls on Shabbos” in the Tzemach Tzedek’s Or Hatorah. This became a practice among our Rebbeim: when Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos, they would say maamarim with that opening phrase. Everyone knows the Rebbe Rashab’s great series of maamarim, the largest of which is the series of 5666. It begins with “When Rosh Hashanah Falls on Shabbos.” There is also the series of 5668, “When Rosh Hashanah Falls on Shabbos,” and then there are several series from the Frierdiker Rebbe that begin that way. One of them is from 5710. The Frierdiker Rebbe’s last series—which is actually a continuation from 5702—also begins “When Rosh Hashanah Falls on Shabbos.” There are several other series from the Frierdiker Rebbe during his lifetime. We also know of a number of maamarim in which the Rebbe spoke about Rosh Hashanah falling on Shabbos. Interestingly, the main ones are from 5733 onward. Before 5733, there is no maamar by the Rebbe beginning “When Rosh Hashanah Falls on Shabbos,” even though Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos several times in the early years. Nevertheless,

04:16 Speaker 1 since the Rebbe would say the maamar at the end of the second day, that is presumably the simple reason why the Rebbe’s maamarim no longer began with “When Rosh Hashanah Falls on Shabbos.” But later the Rebbe began holding a farbrengen on Erev Rosh Hashanah. From 5730, the Rebbe began holding a farbrengen on Erev Rosh Hashanah. Before 5730, the Rebbe generally did not hold a farbrengen on Erev Rosh Hashanah. He did once or twice, but it was not the regular practice. Later, in 5733, the Rebbe began doing so regularly. As a result, when Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos, the opening phrase of the maamar was, in most cases, “When Rosh Hashanah Falls on Shabbos.” There is, for example, the maamar from Erev Rosh Hashanah 5733, when Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos; that maamar was also edited by the Rebbe and appears in Sefer Hamaamarim Melukat. There is the maamar the Rebbe edited for Rosh Hashanah 5750, when Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos. The Rebbe edited that maamar, which also discusses the Tanya—the first two chapters, or the first three chapters. The beginning of Tanya in Likkutei Amarim is connected with the Tzemach Tzedek, because the Alter Rebbe began saying the Tanya when the Tzemach Tzedek was born, on Rosh Hashanah 5550. The year 5750 marked two hundred years, so the maamar the Rebbe edited was this one, which explains the beginning of Tanya. Then there were several other occasions—5735, 5736, 5709, and so on. In 5733. Almost every time Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos, there were maamarim by the Rebbe on “When Rosh Hashanah Falls on Shabbos.” Each time, the explanations were based, on the one hand, on the Alter Rebbe’s maamar, while on the other hand, each maamar offered its own explanation. Today I want to sum up a little: first, the fundamental explanation as it appears in the Alter Rebbe’s maamar, which is really the basis for all the maamarim, and afterward

06:12 Speaker 1 we’ll talk about the Rebbe’s innovation. What does the Rebbe add? The Rebbe offers several interesting additions and explanations that bring a fuller understanding to this whole subject. Now, the question in Chassidus—the question in the Alter Rebbe’s maamar—is very interesting. What is the question? Why was the positive mitzvah of blowing the shofar set aside when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos? That is the question. At first glance, such a thing was set aside simply because of a rabbinic decree. Looking more deeply, it’s interesting that the question has two parts. In many of the maamarim, the force of the question rests specifically on the mitzvah of blowing the shofar. In other words, the fact that the Sages can set aside a mitzvah is not itself surprising. As is well known, the Sages have the power to suspend even a Torah law. But here we are talking about a special mitzvah. The question applies particularly to this mitzvah because we are talking about Rosh Hashanah and blowing the shofar. So in many maamarim—for example, the maamar from 5666—the Rebbe Rashab spends half the maamar explaining the tremendous significance of the mitzvah of blowing the shofar. He does so in 5659 as well, though a little more briefly. In 5666, he discusses it at great length. Similarly, the Frierdiker Rebbe’s maamar based on it goes into this at great length. Sometimes an entire maamar of the Frierdiker Rebbe is devoted just to the question. They explain the tremendous significance of blowing the shofar: it is not just another mitzvah, but an all-encompassing mitzvah, one that affects the entire year. All the divine flow for the whole year comes first through blowing the shofar. Blowing the shofar is also a matter of teshuvah, and teshuvah atones for failures in all the mitzvos. There are many such points about the tremendous significance of blowing the shofar, which make the question all the stronger. For a mitzvah like this, the Sages should not have forgone it merely because of Rabbah’s decree. That is one point, and another is

08:22 Speaker 1 Two—interesting. Some of the maamarim emphasize the other side: that, seemingly, this concern is remote. In other words, the decree was not prompted by such a serious concern, because it concerns only someone who is unlearned and careless. Look, some maamarim do not bring up this point at all. Others do, and in several maamarim it seems to be the main question: After all, the concern is only about someone unlearned and careless. Meaning, for this whole problem of “lest he carry it four cubits in the public domain” to arise, the person would have to be both unlearned and careless. As he explains in the maamar of [unclear], these are two separate shortcomings. He has to be unlearned because he does not know the laws of shofar blowing, and he has to be careless—not noticing that it is Shabbos as he walks around with a shofar in the public domain. So there are two problems: he is both unlearned and careless. That makes it even more remote, something that almost never happens. So how could they set aside this mitzvah, with all its tremendous significance? That is a question from the other side. There are some maamarim—I don’t remember exactly; we would have to check. Sometimes, in certain maamarim, it is written as “and furthermore,” as though these are two questions. One question is about the matter itself: Why did they set it aside? And furthermore, the entire concern is only about this sort of person. So some maamarim phrase it one way and some the other. It is interesting in terms of the question. In any case, the central question in Chassidus is: Why did they set aside the positive mitzvah of blowing the shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos? That is—that is the question. Now, one more detail they are precise about. The Rebbe points out in particular that, in most maamarim, the wording of the question is “Why did they set it aside?” Sometimes a maamar says, “Why did they uproot it?” Uproot it—as though they uprooted

10:26 Speaker 1 it, canceled it. But in most maamarim the wording is “Why did they set it aside?” So the Rebbe emphasizes another aspect that deepens the question: We see that the mitzvah of blowing the shofar was not canceled on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos. It was not canceled. Sometimes you could say that on Shabbos the mitzvah does not exist at all. That would make it easier, if we could say there was no mitzvah at all. Take tefillin, for example. Why don’t we put on tefillin on Shabbos? Because Shabbos itself is a sign, so the mitzvah of tefillin does not apply at all. The whole matter is absent. But with shofar blowing, you cannot say that the mitzvah does not apply. The proof is that they blew the shofar in the Beis Hamikdash. So the mitzvah does exist on Rosh Hashanah, and nevertheless they set it aside. This adds another dimension to the question: Shofar blowing does apply on Shabbos. The proof is that in the time of the Second Beis Hamikdash, when Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos, they did blow the shofar in the Beis Hamikdash and in various other places. So the mitzvah exists, yet they set it aside. That makes the question stronger: Why set aside the mitzvah if it fundamentally applies? How could it be set aside solely because of the decree? That is one point. It is one question asked in Chassidus. I don’t want to go into it now; I’m just adding this as a parenthetical point. But there is also an extensive discussion about this in both Chassidus and Nigleh: They point out that the Gemara seems to indicate that there is a source for it in a verse of the Written Torah, so it is not only a rabbinic decree. One opinion in the Gemara derives it from a verse. At the beginning, when the Gemara introduces this discussion, it brings—Rabbi Levi, I don’t

12:24 Speaker 1 remember the exact wording there, right?—one verse says “a day of sounding the shofar,” and another says “a remembrance of the sounding of the shofar.” One refers to a weekday, and the other to Shabbos. In other words, there is a Torah source for not blowing the shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos; it is only “a remembrance of the sounding of the shofar.” The Bavli does not accept this as the final ruling, but it seems that the Yerushalmi does. In the Yerushalmi, it seems that they do derive it from the verse. The Rebbe Rashab says in 5659 that this is a dispute between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. That is what the Rebbe Rashab says in 5659. The Rebbe also discusses this at length—what exactly is the issue? In one of the maamarim, on Erev Rosh Hashanah 5736, the maamar beginning “Yom Tov Shel Rosh Hashanah” that the Rebbe said on Erev Rosh Hashanah 5736—it was then seventy years since Hemshech 5666. Throughout 5736, the Rebbe said maamarim based on Hemshech 5666. Almost all the maamarim of that year were based on Hemshech 5666, because it had been seventy years. There was also the maamar “Yom Tov Shel Rosh Hashanah,” and there the Rebbe speaks a little about this point too: the Bavli and Yerushalmi, whether it is from the Torah or only rabbinic. So that too is a parenthetical point. Moving on: The second question in the maamarim is, why in the Beis Hamikdash—why? Sorry, why do we recite the verses even though we do not blow the shofar? I mean during Mussaf, right, when we recite the blessing and the verses about the shofar. One could certainly ask: If there is no mitzvah to blow the shofar, then we should not recite the verses either. Just as we do not say Avinu Malkeinu or recite confessions of sin. There are various things we do not say on Shabbos, right? We know from the machzor that there are all kinds of sections omitted on Shabbos. Now,

14:17 Speaker 1 requests for our needs, and so on. So seemingly, if there is no shofar blowing on Shabbos, the section with the verses about shofar blowing should also have been omitted. Nevertheless, we do recite the verses. As far as I recall, this question is not found in Likkutei Torah. It first appears in the Tzemach Tzedek’s Or HaTorah, and the maamarim of 5666 discuss it at great length. Toward the end of Hemshech 5666, the Rebbe Rashab makes this the basis of the whole discussion; essentially, the entire structure of Hemshech 5666 rests on this point: Why do we recite the verses? We will get to that shortly. The Rebbe’s maamarim also discuss it at length in connection with this. So, in the end, there are two questions here. The first is: Why did they set aside shofar blowing on Shabbos, when they would blow it on a weekday? Why set aside shofar blowing when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos? They did blow it in the Beis Hamikdash, but not elsewhere. That is one question. The second is: Why do we recite the shofar verses? Is that clear so far? Now, what is the basic explanation? The explanation, beginning with the Rebbe, is connected to the fundamental subject Chassidus explains to us: what happens on Rosh Hashanah. We say that Rosh Hashanah is the building of Malchus—the building of Malchus. The source for this is the Gemara in tractate Rosh Hashanah. Hakadosh Boruch Hu said: “Recite verses of kingship before Me on Rosh Hashanah so that you will make Me King over you.” On Rosh Hashanah, we crown Hakadosh Boruch Hu as King. There is also Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer and the Midrashim, and so on. The theme of Rosh Hashanah is “With trumpets and the sound of the shofar, sound forth before the King, Hashem.” And the Rebbe cites Rav Saadia Gaon, who says that this is the first reason for blowing the shofar, among the ten reasons given in the sefarim. The first reason is to crown the King. On Rosh Hashanah, we crown Hakadosh Boruch Hu as King. And the beginning

16:03 Speaker 1 At the creation of the world, Adam Harishon crowned Hakadosh Boruch Hu as King and said to all the created beings: “Come, let us bow down and prostrate ourselves; let us kneel before Hashem, our Maker.” And since then ... through ... of the Jewish people, what does it mean to establish His kingship? They asked: Why do we need the verses of kingship? Hakadosh Boruch Hu is already King. Why do we need to make Him King? The question goes deeper. Seemingly, if Hakadosh Boruch Hu stopped being King, there should no longer be a world, since all creation comes about through kingship. “By the word of Hashem the heavens were made”; “Where the word of a king is, there is authority”; “Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds, and Your rule is throughout every generation.” Without kingship, a world cannot exist. The whole creation of the world, the very existence of the world, rests on kingship. So if you say that on the eve of Rosh Hashanah kingship withdraws, then there is no longer a world. Everything should become absolute nothingness. As it says in Tanya, if Hakadosh Boruch Hu were to stop uttering the word of Hashem for even a moment, there would no longer be a world; everything would cease to exist. But the world exists. What answer does Chassidus give? That the external aspect of kingship does not withdraw. There is the external aspect of kingship, and there is its inner aspect. Kingship in practice—the word of Hashem—continues. Hakadosh Boruch Hu brings the world into being and sustains it, so the world goes on living. People walk around; the world exists. What, then, withdraws? When we say that on Rosh Hashanah night there is a withdrawal, a separation, the whole matter spoken of in the Torah—as though something happens before Rosh Hashanah—this concerns the inner aspect of kingship. What does the inner aspect of kingship mean? Chassidus explains it in terms of desire and delight. Pay attention to those two words, because they will come into the explanation: desire and delight. The desire and delight in kingship become concealed. Hakadosh Boruch Hu, so to speak, does not want to be King and takes no delight in kingship, which is

17:59 Speaker 1 what the maamarim explain as the difference between kingship and rule. Kingship is by consent: they accepted it upon themselves. Rule can be against their will—both on the part of the people and on the part of the ruler. A ruler may rule even though the people do not want him, and the ruler himself may not want it either. Essentially, he takes no delight in it. Rather, he does it under compulsion. He does it against his will because he has to, externally. His inner self is not in it; he is not truly there. Kingship has to be voluntary, on both sides. The people must want it and accept his kingship willingly. Then he becomes King—not by force or compulsion, but willingly. He wants to be King. This is what we studied at length in the Sefer HaMaamarim: the entire avodah of Rosh Hashanah is to awaken, so to speak, Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s desire for kingship. Chassidus goes further: not only desire, but delight as well. Desire and delight go together. The inner dimension of desire is delight. Here too, for Hakadosh Boruch Hu, kingship is not only a matter of desire; He takes delight in it. That delight is connected to “He desired to have a dwelling place in the lower realms.” Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s delight is “It is gratifying to Me that I spoke and My will was carried out.” Hakadosh Boruch Hu takes delight in Jewish souls. The delight in having a dwelling place in the lower realms, the delight in kingship—that is the root of the whole matter. And on Rosh Hashanah night, so to speak, it all withdraws and returns to its original state. The desire and delight withdraw, and Hakadosh Boruch Hu waits for Jewish souls to awaken that desire and delight anew. Now, in most maamarim they generally do not distinguish between the two. No, hardly at all. They speak of desire and delight as a single unit. They do not really separate them. But there is a very interesting discussion in Likkutei Sichos.

19:57 Speaker 1 It is not so clear in Chassidus. Sometimes they say it one way, sometimes another. The wording can vary, but there is something in Likkutei Sichos, volume 29. It is worth looking at—very enjoyable—in the sicha on Nitzavim-Vayeilech in volume 29. If you have studied the sicha, you will see it there. Likkutei Sichos, volume 29, Nitzavim-Vayeilech: there the Rebbe gives a well-known explanation of how Nitzavim and Vayeilech are opposites. Nitzavim means standing, while Vayeilech means walking, and so on. He explains the connection between Nitzavim and Vayeilech. There the Rebbe also brings up Rosh Hashanah. Continuing that sicha, he explains the connection of Nitzavim and Vayeilech with Rosh Hashanah. And the Rebbe says something remarkable. The Rebbe says that Rosh Hashanah has two aspects. On Rosh Hashanah we say, “Whether as children or as servants.” On the one hand, when we speak about Rosh Hashanah, most of the time we speak about accepting His kingship: servants. There is a King and there is a people, and the people give themselves over to the King. That is the main avodah of Rosh Hashanah. “Our Father, our King, we have no King but You.” Servants. The main avodah of Rosh Hashanah is servitude, kabbolas ol. That is how it is presented in most maamarim. But in the wording of the prayers we also say “children.” There is an aspect of being a child here too, and that is also connected to the avodah of Rosh Hashanah. What is it? What is the difference between a child and a servant? The Rebbe says the difference is desire and delight. With a servant, the main thing is desire. Simply put, a servant does what the King wants. That is a servant’s role. There is the King and the King’s wishes, and the servants fulfill his wishes. Of course, if you understand desire, you understand delight, but the main relationship, the connection between servants and the King, is one of desire. With a child, by contrast, the connection is one of delight. Father and child have an essential bond. A father takes delight in his child. A father takes delight

22:01 Speaker 1 in him because the child is part of him. They share one essence, one inner being. The child is part of him. So it follows that, since on Rosh Hashanah we say “whether as children or as servants,” on Rosh Hashanah we need to bring about both things: delight and desire. The Rebbe explains that this is Nitzavim and Vayeilech. Delight corresponds to Nitzavim, because delight is intrinsic; it is steadfast, something essential that does not change. Desire, by contrast, has more to do with movement—with Vayeilech, with walking. The Rebbe explains this, and it is very, very interesting how he builds the whole discussion from a few words there in the sicha. In the references, the Rebbe points to the maamar Tik’u, 5717—a maamar from Tishrei ’17. If you studied ’17 here, then you know; those who studied ’17 do. Yes, there he discusses this point of “With whom did He consult?” The major innovation of that maamar is that Rosh Hashanah is not just a matter of—you studied it, didn’t you? What? I said Tik’u. Sorry, sorry. It is Zeh Hayom, 5717. There the Rebbe explains that on Rosh Hashanah there is not only a withdrawal with regard to the people, but also an essential withdrawal. And the avodah of Rosh Hashanah is not only like that of servants, but also relates to the King of kings. He brings the verse there, “With whom did He consult?” In other words, this is a category of—so here in Likkutei Sichos, the Rebbe refers to that maamar. That means Rosh Hashanah has two aspects. And seemingly one could say—again, we need to check whether it says this explicitly; I am not sure—but seemingly one could say that this is why the maamarim always quote the maamar of 5703, which says that the avodah of Rosh Hashanah, crowning the King, is done “with profound self-nullification and great joy.” Because those two expressions are also connected to the two aspects, because

23:49 Speaker 1 of desire and delight. It is worth—I am not sure; I need to look into it. The Rebbe refers to it. I think he also refers there in the sicha to 5703.

23:58 Speaker 2 In terms of honor, no?

24:00 Speaker 1 That was the basis. Rabbi Levi’s maamar of 5703. That is the source.

24:03 Speaker 2 There is an essential difference between the maamar about the King.

24:07 Speaker 1 On Rosh Hashanah. Which maamar do you mean?

24:10 Speaker 2 Could be 5703.

24:15 Speaker 1 Could be. I don’t know. I don’t know. Could be, could be.

24:21 Speaker 2 So Yom Kippur is not relevant.

24:24 Speaker 1 Ah, yes, yes. Now you’re talking about ’91.

24:27 Speaker 2 Yes.

24:28 Speaker 1 There’s a maamar by a tzaddik in which he says that a Jew is a king’s son, and therefore he can return. Yes, yes. It’s about teshuvah. [unclear] In any case, let’s get back to our subject. So now let’s return to the Alter Rebbe’s maamar, and afterward we’ll see how the Rebbe explains it. In the Alter Rebbe’s maamar, when he discusses blowing the shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos, he says that on Rosh Hashanah, the sense of pleasure has to be renewed—yes, so that Hashem will take an interest in the work. That’s the main point. Blowing the shofar brings this about: through it, we draw down from the source of pleasure. Chassidus explains that shofar is related to shipru, a word associated with pleasure. With a reish, shefer—shefer means pleasure, delight. In any case, the point of blowing the shofar is to draw down from the source of pleasure, to awaken a new pleasure in Hakadosh Boruch Hu, which in turn awakens His will and, consequently, His kingship. It all begins with awakening that pleasure. If so, on Shabbos—since the whole essence of Shabbos is “You shall call Shabbos a delight”; that is the mitzvah of Shabbos, its essence and its content. Shabbos is about delight. And of Shabbos we say that Shabbos itself is what “You shall call Shabbos a delight” means: by its very nature, Shabbos draws down supernal delight. That is the whole idea of Shabbos. In Chassidus this is based on the verses, but the point is that on Shabbos, so to speak, Hakadosh Boruch Hu experiences delight. Chassidus explains why Shabbos is rest. How is rest on Shabbos defined? It is connected with pleasure. In physical terms, when a person is working, he is busy or preoccupied, but when he finishes working, he returns to himself. Then he has

26:23 Speaker 1 a sense of satisfaction from having finished the work and seeing the result of everything he has done. That awakens a very great pleasure in him—the pleasure of a completed task. As it says of the sixth day, “And G-d saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good,” and then, “The heavens and the earth were completed.” Vayechulu, “were completed,” is related to pleasure. The Tzemach Tzedek cites this, and the Rebbe says it too. I remember a maamar of the Rebbe from 5748, Vayechulu, on Rosh Hashanah 5748. It began with Vayechulu because that year Rosh Hashanah ended as Shabbos began, making three consecutive days of Yom Tov and Shabbos. The Rebbe delivered the maamar on Friday night, so its opening words were Vayechulu. The Rebbe explained that vayechulu conveys longing and desire, yearning and pleasure—one of the meanings given for that word. In other words, after seeing that everything is “very good,” pleasure arises, and that pleasure is rest. As we said, pleasure is the opposite of [unclear]. Pleasure is when you are at one with yourself. [unclear] When you return to yourself, you are in a state of delight and inner spaciousness, with nothing troubling you. Everything is complete; all your work is done, and everything is as it should be. So Shabbos is inherently a time of pleasure. So much so that, as the maamarim explain, the essential Shabbos comes on its own. It says, “The Children of Israel shall guard the Shabbos.” What does “guard” mean? You guard Shabbos. Shabbos itself is pleasure; you just have to guard it and not lose it. The pleasure is already there—you only have to take part in it. In any case, this explains why, when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos, the delight is already present by virtue of Shabbos. As soon as Shabbos begins, it accomplishes what blowing the shofar is meant to accomplish.

28:10 Speaker 1 What are we seeking through blowing the shofar? To awaken pleasure. Shabbos itself awakens that pleasure. So once it is Shabbos, Shabbos brings about the pleasure, and there is no need to blow the shofar. That’s the explanation. Ah, but if so, why did they blow the shofar in the Beis Hamikdash? Doesn’t that imply that blowing the shofar still serves a purpose? The maamarim explain that pleasure has many levels. There is the awakening of pleasure, there is the essence of pleasure—there are many levels of pleasure. We don’t have time to go into what those levels mean, but it is a well-known subject, a whole discussion in Chassidus. The Rebbe Rashab discusses it at length in the series of maamarim of 5666: composite pleasure, simple pleasure, essential pleasure, consciously felt pleasure, and pleasure that is not consciously felt. There are many levels. In the Beis Hamikdash, which was the gate of heaven, they could draw down a level of pleasure that Shabbos itself did not bring about. This is explained, for example, in a maamar of the Rebbe from 5743, which is also an edited maamar. The Rebbe says there—incidentally, [unclear]—that even with regard to Shabbos, Chassidus points out that it says both “The Children of Israel shall guard the Shabbos” and “to make the Shabbos.” Why the two expressions? Chassidus explains that there are two levels. There is the pleasure that comes down on Shabbos of its own accord. About that, the verse says “guard”: don’t spoil it; just preserve it. But there is also “to make the Shabbos.” A Jew has the ability to add a higher level of delight to Shabbos, and that is what “to make the Shabbos” means. So there are different levels even within Shabbos: the delight that comes on its own and the delight brought about by a Jew. Now, returning to our subject,

30:00 Speaker 1 they say that when the Beis Hamikdash stood, things were on a higher plane. They could draw down a greater pleasure than Shabbos itself provides, so they needed to blow the shofar to draw down a level of pleasure that would not come down through Shabbos alone. But in exile, we cannot draw down that higher level of delight—only the ordinary level, which comes down through Shabbos as well. So we don’t need to blow the shofar. That is the classic explanation found in Likkutei Torah and in the maamarim, and so on. That is the explanation given in most maamarim. But why do we still say the verses? Why do we still say them? It’s interesting. In Likkutei— as I said, Likkutei Torah doesn’t address this. There is a passage in the Tzemach Tzedek’s Or Hatorah—the first place where he discusses it—and the Rebbe repeated it in 5743. What does he say? Look, it says: “Since the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, Hakadosh Boruch Hu has nothing in His world but the four cubits of halachah.” What does that mean? That in the Beis Hamikdash there is no destruction—ah, sorry, in Torah. Where is the light that was in the Beis Hamikdash now found? In Torah, in the four cubits of halachah. In other words, what was present in the Beis Hamikdash is present in Torah. So because Torah takes the place of the Beis Hamikdash, we continue to say the verses from the Torah even when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos. It is as though—so to speak—the verses of Shofaros are Torah, and Torah takes the place of the Beis Hamikdash. Since they blew the shofar in the Beis Hamikdash even on Shabbos, where is our Beis Hamikdash today? In Torah. So we still say the Torah verses now. In those verses, so to speak, there has been no destruction; within the verses, it is the Beis Hamikdash. In the maamar from 5743, the Rebbe adds, along the lines of what is written

32:12 Speaker 1 The Mishnah says: “The only free person is one who engages in Torah study.” So when a person studies Torah, he is in a state of Geulah. For him, the Beis Hamikdash exists, and there one can sound the shofar—at least sound it as it exists in Torah, as it shines in the verses. That is the point the Rebbe makes in a maamar based on a maamar of the Tzemach Tzedek. The Rebbe drew strength from the Tzemach Tzedek for Erev Rosh Hashanah, because it is the Tzemach Tzedek’s birthday. That’s it. But in the series of maamarim from 5666, the Rebbe Rashab makes a different point. If you’ve ever studied the 5666 series—and if not, one day you will—the whole series is founded on this. You could say its essential point is the Rebbe Rashab’s lengthy explanation of how all the revelations of the future come from our service of Hashem now. The entire series explains making a dwelling place for Hashem in the lower realms. How do we accomplish that? Through mitzvos, through Torah. Which aspect of our service of Hashem brings about the future revelations? He discusses at length the various levels of delight that will be revealed in the future: the first period of Geulah, the days of Moshiach, and the second period, the World to Come. There are all kinds of levels of delight—deep delight, delight within wisdom, and essential delight. He explains all the levels, and which form of service draws down each level, and so on. There, in the 5666 series, the Rebbe Rashab says that the most essential drawing-down of the future—that which “He will do for the one who waits for Him,” above the level of the head—comes specifically through studying Torah with kabbolas ol. This is specifically through Torah, more than through mitzvos, because Torah is the primary means of bringing the Essence into revelation. When a person studies Torah, and his Torah study is characterized by the utter self-nullification of kabbolas ol, when he

34:08 Speaker 1 wants to know the supernal will, he studies Torah with self-nullification, and so on. The maamarim explain at length what that means. Through this, we bring about the drawing-down of the Essence in the future, including the highest level of delight, and bring it into revelation. That is the distinctive quality of the World to Come, the highest level. So the Rebbe Rashab says, at the end of the series—and the 5666 series has a conclusion—the Rebbe Rashab began on Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah with questions about Rosh Hashanah, but the series then continued for three years, moving through all kinds of subjects. So in 5666, after the entire lengthy series, he wrote its conclusion. Another wonderful point. In that conclusion, he returns to the beginning and answers all the questions he asked in the first maamar. He explains it beautifully there. Why do we recite the shofar verses? Because the shofar verses are connected with Torah, and as we said, Torah brings the Essence into revelation. So we need that now as well. Sounding the shofar is only a mitzvah; it is not Torah. So during exile, we don’t, don’t, don’t... Shabbos brings it about, as we discussed. But the advantage of Torah is that it is higher. This is the novel point in the 5666 series: the shofar verses are higher than the sounding of the shofar itself. That is an enormous innovation. Usually it is the other way around. Usually the main thing is the mitzvah; the verses are only verses. But from what is explained in the 5666 series, it emerges that the shofar verses have an advantage over the mitzvah of sounding the shofar. This is connected with the future revelation, with a foretaste of the World to Come, and so on—and that can never be interrupted. Therefore, on Rosh Hashanah, even in the Beis Hamikdash, wherever one is, the shofar verses must be recited,

35:52 Speaker 1 because they bring about the revelation of what is drawn down—the whole point. Just another delightful insight into how it is presented in the 5666 series. Up to here is the explanation in the usual maamarim, together with the additions of the Rebbe Rashab and the Rebbe. Now, to conclude the subject: that was always the approach, until 5749. In 5749, the Rebbe wrote a general letter and transformed the whole discussion. Until then, everything was connected with delight—delight and Shabbos. There is delight that comes from Shabbos, and so on. There is the well-known saying that Reb Hillel of Paritch quoted in the name of the Alter Rebbe: eating kugel on a Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos is more important than sounding the shofar. Sounding the shofar is deferred; the kugel is not. There is such a saying from Reb Hillel of Paritch in the Alter Rebbe’s name. Of course it is humorous, but based on what we’ve learned, there is depth to it: the delight of the kugel is higher than the delight of sounding the shofar. But what happened in 5749? The Rebbe wrote a general letter with a wonderful, entirely new explanation—one that, seemingly, is not based on the Rebbe Rashab’s approach we have discussed so far. What does the Rebbe say? Why don’t we sound the shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos? There, the Rebbe’s question is slightly different, and at a farbrengen the Rebbe discussed it at length. The Rebbe added another layer to what seems like a simple question. The Rosh Hashanah maamarim always emphasize: How can you tell me that when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos, it is drawn down on its own? Where is human service? After all, Chassidus always explains that the month of Elul is initiated from Above. But Tishrei—why is Rosh Hashanah not in Elul, but on the first of Tishrei? Because there is an advantage to human service. Suddenly Shabbos arrives, and we don’t need human service? Shabbos itself does it? How can that be? So the Rebbe says something wonderful. The Rebbe says: Certainly

38:02 Speaker 1 there is service.

38:03 Speaker 3 Eating the kugel.

38:04 Speaker 1 What is the service?

38:05 Speaker 3 Eating the kugel.

38:08 Speaker 1 The Rebbe said something else: the service is self-nullification. The Rebbe says that a Jew refrains from doing work on Shabbos—and that is why sounding the shofar is also prohibited, because of the decree concerning prohibited activity, and so on. Why doesn’t a Jew carry on Shabbos? Why don’t we do work on Shabbos? It isn’t passive; it isn’t that we sleep through Shabbos. That would not be service. On the contrary, on Shabbos a Jew stands in self-nullification before the King. And when you stand before the King, you cannot do anything. When you are far from the King, you do things for Him. In the King’s country, you have to work, act and accomplish. But when you stand before the King, you do not move even a finger, because in the King’s presence, any action is an act of rebellion. So self-nullification is not an absence of service; it is the service itself. The service is self-nullification. The Rebbe says that this is the difference between a Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos and an ordinary Rosh Hashanah. On an ordinary Rosh Hashanah, we crown Hakadosh Boruch Hu through an action: sounding the shofar. But when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos, a Jew is at such a high level of self-nullification that he cannot even sound the shofar. So the absence of the shofar does not mean that he is doing nothing. On the contrary, he is expressing an even greater self-nullification. That is an enormous innovation. I’m just saying this in light of what we discussed earlier: according to this explanation, you could say that it is connected with the aspect of will as well, not only delight. We said there are two aspects to Rosh Hashanah: the delight in the coronation and the will in the coronation. In crowning Him, there is delight. So all the explanations we have discussed until now are connected with delight. On Shabbos, one delight takes the place of the other. But here the point is self-nullification—the self-nullification of Rosh Hashanah. We always say that Rosh Hashanah is about self-nullification, kabbolas ol: the people submit themselves to the

40:02 Speaker 1 The King. So there are two levels of bittul. There is bittul through action—that is the blowing of the shofar. And there is bittul through refraining from action—that is Shabbos. And that too is bittul; on the contrary, it is a deeper bittul. This raises the question: What about the Beis Hamikdash? There they did blow the shofar when Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos. The Rebbe does not address this in the general letter, but in a sicha at a farbrengen, the Rebbe said something remarkable. The Rebbe said: There is a third level. There is a third level of bittul, where a person is so completely nullified that he can act, too. There is bittul expressed through negation, and there is an even greater bittul that is beyond the category of negation. It is what we discussed in the classes today: it is not defined by any category, not even the category of negation. There is bittul where you take action in order to become nullified. There is bittul of one’s very existence, as on Shabbos, when one refrains from action. And there is a bittul so lofty that even the nullification of one’s existence does not define it. There are no boundaries at all. And if there are no boundaries, you can also act. You do not need to refrain from acting. He is so completely nullified that whatever Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants him to do, he does. But that action does not come from his own sense of self. It comes from the ultimate degree of bittul, so the action itself is also the ultimate expression of bittul. That is such a lofty level, and it existed in the Beis Hamikdash. The Rebbe also translated this into a person’s avodah: a person acts but does not feel at all that he is acting. It is an action in which the person’s own existence is not felt at all. He does what is true because it is true. It is a kind of action in which neither the giver nor the receiver is felt at all. The Rebbe says that the general letter also alludes to this: sometimes you say that you are doing something, but really, you do not have a sense of your own existence.

41:55 Speaker 1 There is a kind of action in which it is not felt at all that you are giving and the other person is receiving. What is the inner point of all this? Chassidus helps us understand the depth of Rosh Hashanah falling on Shabbos. Through Shabbos itself we have the ability to awaken delight in Hakadosh Boruch Hu, and, as the Rebbe says, we do so through bittul. Bittul, then, is the avodah itself: to become completely nullified. And through this we accomplish what the Rebbe writes in the general letters of that year, 5749. What it means in practice, in a year when Rosh Hashanah begins on Shabbos, is that we have the power to carry this through the entire year—to every day of the year, every detail of creation, and every part of our lives. Shabbos, which is fixed and enduring, should permeate every act with holiness and bittul, both in Torah and mitzvos and in everyday matters such as eating, drinking, and business—in everything. One should be thoroughly permeated with the awareness that one stands before the King. This ultimate bittul, this fixed and enduring Shabbos, the holiness of Shabbos, should permeate every day of the year. And most importantly, may we already merit “Shabbos and rest for everlasting life,” immediately, right now.