0285 - Ha'ara in Lekutei Sichos about the Criteria for Chukim

00:00 In Likutei Sichos, Chelek Yod Gimmel, page one oh five, there is a Ha'arah nine. The Ha'arah has a whole inyan, and at the end of the Ha'arah it says, "Avol ra'ei Sichas parshas Matos Masssei Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel." But look in the Sicha of parshas Matos Masssei Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel. When it says avol it... but means different than what it said before. In other words, what he's saying in the last line is that after he says the whole inyan in this Ha'arah, he says, "But look in the Sicha of parshas Matos Masssei Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel, you will see different than what it says here." So I want to explain the background behind these words, the last line of this Ha'arah. This Sicha that's printed here in Likutei Sichos Chelek Yod Gimmel came out for Shabbos Parshas Matos Masssei Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel. It's a Sicha that the Rebbe said, Parshas Matos Masssei Tov Shin Chaf Vav. And there the Sicha, the Rebbe explains the pasuk where it says at the end of the parsha in Matos concerning the dinim of nedarim, the pasuk says, "Ela ha'chukim asher tziva Hashem es Moshe bein ish le'ishto, bein av le'bito, bein ereh u'veisavih." Which means these are the chukim that Hashem commanded Moshe Rabbeinu concerning between husband and wife, and father and daughter. This refers to all the dinim that the Torah said in the earlier pesukim that a father could nullify the neder of his daughter, and the w- husband could nullify the neder of,

01:28 neder of his wife. So here the Torah makes a sum total and says, "These are the laws, the chukim, that Hashem commanded between husband and wife, and father and daughter." And the question the Rebbe asked, why in this sak하kl at the end of the parsha, why doesn't the Torah also mention the mere fact that you have to keep a neder? Because part of what the Torah said earlier is that when you make a neder, you have to keep it. So Torah should have said, "These are the laws of a neder, that you have to keep what you said, and add also, and the laws between husband and wife, and father and daughter." And the Rebbe explained, because the Torah uses the word chukim, that he's only making a sum total of the chukim. Chukah is a mitzvah that has no rational reason. So the mitzvah that you have to keep your neder is not a chukah. There's a rational reason for it. When you say something, you gotta keep your word. But the halachas between father and daughter, and husband and wife, that is chukah. And that's why when he talks about the chukim, he only mentions these two. When the Rebbe said this, we were wondering, because l'poel mamesh, even the fact that a father could nullify the neder of his daughter and a husband neder of his wife is also understood. Since the w- wife is under the reshuth of her fa- husband, and the daughter is under the reshuth of her father,

02:41 makes sense that when she makes a neder, it's up to the father to decide if he wants the neder or not. It's almost as if when she makes the neder, it's on condition that the husband or the father will agree. And actually, the Klei Yakar says that, even though his pshat is not al derech hapshat, but this is a, a, a vort that fits in derech hapshat. So we assumed then, bashas the Rebbe said in the farbrengen, that probably what the Rebbe meant was not the mere fact that a father could nullify the neder of his daughter and the husband the neder of his wife. That's not the chukah. The chukah are the details. The details are that, for instance, they could only nullify it if it's, they do it on the day they heard it. There's no rational reason for that. Also, the lotion they have to use, there's a different lotion the father uses and a different lotion the husband uses. Those have no rational reason. Probably that's what the Rebbe meant, that these are chukim because of these details, but not because of the general din. So when we prepared the Sicha for Shabbos Parshas Matos Masssei Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel, we wrote this vort that we understood the Rebbe meant, that when he says that this is a chukah of bein ish le'ishto, bein av le'bito, he meant the details of it. And that's what we wrote. We wrote it in a Ha'arah because it's not something that's directly negeia. So

03:52 it went into Ha'arah, and the Rebbe was magiya the Sicha, and that's how it said there. Came Shabbos Parshas Matos Masssei by the farbrengen, Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel. The Rebbe referred to this Ha'arah, and the Rebbe said that how could you say that? Becholal, a lot of mishpatim, mitzvot which are in the category of mishpatim, means that the general mitzvah has a reason. But the detail, lav davka not necessarily have a reason. And he gave an example. For instance, one of the mishpatim which is in chu- in Parshas Mishpatim is that if an ax kills an eved, the owner of the ax has to pay the owner of the eved thirty sela. And this is one of the mishpatim. Why? Because it makes sense that if your ax killed an eved, you are responsible to pay. And it's in Parshas Mishpatim. It's part of the mishpatim. Even though why davka thirty sela, that detail has no reason, a reason that we understand. It doesn't have a reason we don't, we understand. It doesn't change it and turn it into a chukah. It's still considered mishpatim. So too here, the Rebbe said, if the general idea that a father is able to nullify the neder of his daughter and a husband the neder of his wife is understood, and it's not a chukah, because the details in it are not understood doesn't turn it into chukah. So it doesn't fit, the Rebbe says, what it says in this Ha'arah, that the details, because the details are

05:10 not rational, therefore the mitzvah is called a chukah. And therefore the Rebbe said differently, a different bier, and said that this is not so. Now, the interesting thing is that by the farbrengen, when the Rebbe said this, the Rebbe added and he said, "I'm waiting for seven years for somebody to ask this question." Because the Sicha was said in Tov Shin Chaf Vav, and this is Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel. I'm waiting seven years why nobody asked this question that I'm asking now on what was said then. The interesting thing is the Rebbe never said this then. It was only self-understood that this is what he meant. So we see here how much the Rebbe wanted mezach kochin in the Sichas, that not only what he actually outright said we should look into it and try to understand and if not to ask the questions. Even the things that he did not say outright, but it's obvious that this is included in what he said, he also wanted you should understand that and koch zach in that, and if you have a question on that, you should ask. We know that many times by the farbrengen after a Sicha, the Rebbe would say, "Ten l'chacham v'yachameit." Meaning if you give an idea to a chacham, he could go further and understand it even more than what he was told. So you should understand even more. So we here we see that Rebbe complained that seven years since I said the Sicha and no one asked, even

06:23 though he never said this, but this was included in what he said. L'poel after Shabbos, the next Likut was added a line that's supposed to add to this Ha'arah here, "Avol ra'ei Sichas Parshas Matos Masssei Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel." The Ha'arah state, Rebbe was magiya the Sicha before Shabbos Parshas Matos Masssei Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel, and he left this Ha'arah, but Shabbos he asked the kasha. So afterward they added that there should be new line written here, "Avol ra'ei," look at the Sicha from Parshas Matos Masssei Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel differently. And the Rebbe allowed it to be written. He was magiya that, and it's written, and that's how it stayed. And when the sefer was printed, the Ha'arah is there with this vort that it's called a chukah because the details are not understood. And then it says it then, "But look at the Sicha of Parshas Matos Masssei Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel, you see differently." So now we have to learn, if the Rebbe asked this kasha, in other words he said this is not so, then he should have not left this Ha'arah. He should have crossed it out. He left the Ha'arah. Obviously there's a makor for this also. And then he said, left the "Avol ra'ei," look in Matos Masssei Tov Shin Lamed Gimmel to say it's different. So we have to look into this to see why the kasha is not such a real strong kasha. That's why he left it. But on the other hand, it is a

07:33 kasha. This is something for everybody to learn.