"Cheder" three hundred seventy-six in the palace of daily life.
Wednesday, 11 Kislev 5700 (1939).
Lessons: Chumash, Vayishlach, fourth aliyah, with the commentary of Rashi.
Psalms, on the 11th day of the month, we recite from chapter 60 through chapter 65 inclusive.
Tanya, we continue with Kuntres Acharon. Today's lesson is in the fourth section of Kuntres Acharon, and we are already at the eleventh part of this section. The lesson is on page 316, begins with the word "veha'taam" ("and the reason") and ends with the word "u'gemara" ("and Gemara").
In today's lesson there are several glosses that the Rebbe Rashab annotated on the Siddur. What is this Siddur? There is a siddur known as "Siddur im Da"ch" — a siddur with chassidic discourses. This is in fact the first book of the discourses of the Alter Rebbe, which his son, the Mitteler Rebbe, printed three years after the passing of his father. These are very special discourses that the Alter Rebbe would recite every Shabbat privately (b'yechidut) to his sons, and also a few select individuals among the chassidim were permitted to be present at that gathering. The Mitteler Rebbe gathered these discourses, which follow the order of the prayers, and they are printed in the book called "Siddur im Divrei Elokim Chayim" — abbreviated as "Siddur im Da"ch."
Here, in the daily saying, the Rebbe brings four glosses of the Rebbe Rashab on the siddur, in various discourses, as we shall see explicitly. He says: "From the glosses of my father, my master and teacher, on the siddur "Seder HaTefillah" (with Chassidus)".
The first note on "Volume 1, the discourse beginning 'Baruch oseh bereishis,' page 99a." Here a correction is needed, for the discourse under discussion is not the one beginning "Baruch oseh bereishis," but rather the discourse beginning "Baruch she'amar vehaya ha'olam." Let us read the wording of the note and explain a bit of the background. In the discourse it was written: "which is not the case regarding the aspect of Radla" — "Radla" is an acronym for "reisha delo isyada" [the head that is not known], an exceedingly lofty divine level. And the Rebbe Rashab emends it to read: "corrected: And now the explanation and meaning of the aspect of Radla can be understood."
What is the content of this rectification? In that same discourse, "Baruch She'amar Vehayah Ha'olam" ("Blessed is He who spoke and the world came into being"), the Alter Rebbe states in his introduction that the intentions of "Baruch She'amar" are at the level of radla — "reisha dela ityada" ("the head that is not known"), an exceedingly lofty level. He explains what "dela ityada" means, and says that one must understand the source of this aspect. He explains at length that there are various levels; he brings the level of Keter, regarding which one at least has knowledge of its existence, and brings an analogy from the human soul, in which there are certain aspects that we do not precisely understand what they are, but at the very least we have proofs that they exist. But the aspect of radla — not only do we not understand this level, but we do not even know at all what is being spoken of.
After giving the introduction about a level upon which there is knowledge of existence, and wishing to speak about the aspect of radla (the "unknowable head") — here comes the correction. In place of the wording "unlike the aspect of radla," it should read "and now the explanation and matter of the aspect of radla will be understood." What is the emphasis of the correction? That the main subject of the discourse is to explain the level of radla and to speak about it, and one should not think that the discourse comes to explain both the lower level and the higher one. If it brings the lower level, this is only as an introduction; but the main point of the discourse is "and now the explanation and matter of the aspect of radla will be understood." This is the first correction.
The second correction — let us first read the wording and then explain. In "Part 2" of the siddur, in the "discourse beginning "Ad HaGal" (88d)" in the fourth column. What is written there in the discourse is "according to the Rabbis, and the halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda who blessed," and the wording was corrected. What is the correction? In fact, the Mitteler Rebbe already made this correction, and the Rebbe copied it: "corrected to: according to the Rabbis, if he blessed."
What is being discussed there? In the discourse "Ad HaGal," the topic is the ministering angel of Esau — who symbolizes the opposing force of the kelipah — who struck Jacob's thigh. According to the inner dimension, it is explained that the kelipot can draw sustenance from holiness only from the aspect of Hod and below, which is the end of the sefirot and lower; and the thigh corresponds to Hod, and therefore the ministering angel of Esau struck Jacob's thigh. Now, in the division of the sefirot into the right line and the left line, in which line is Hod found? Hod is found on the left side — Binah, Gevurah, Hod, whose well-known initials are "BaGaH."
Now, if the angel struck (according to Kabbalah, in the sefirah of Hod) the thigh — let us consider which thigh is meant. For as a result of the angel's striking, there arises the prohibition against eating the gid hanasheh (the sciatic nerve); and in which thigh does the prohibition of gid hanasheh apply, in the right or in the left? There is a dispute concerning this: Rabbi Yehudah holds that it applies exclusively in the right, while the Sages say that it applies in both. In the discourse it is explained that the inner meaning of the striking by the ministering angel of Esau, from the aspect of Hod, fits both the view of the Sages and the view of Rabbi Yehudah, and it explains there according to Kabbalah, for at times Hod can be on the right and at times on the left.
Now we will understand the correction. When one reads the discourse before the correction, it seems that the explanation refers only to the view of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that it is on the right, and therefore initially it was written "according to the Rabbanan," and in the Gemara there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbanan, and then there was the addition "and the halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda who blessed" — from which it is understood that the explanation follows only according to Rabbi Yehuda, whom the halacha follows. What is the correction? That it should be written between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbanan whether one blessed the right or not, and according to this it emerges that the explanation in the discourse does not come to specify with whom the halacha lies and specifically like the view of Rabbi Yehuda, but rather the explanation refers to both views. And this will also be the content of the following correction.
The next correction is "there," in the same discourse. In the printed version it says "the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and so is the truth" — in the discourse it is written that the gid hanasheh is on the right thigh according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, "and so is the truth." What is the correction in practice? "He drew a pen through the words 'and so is the truth'" — the words "and so is the truth" were deleted. That is, once again, that the discourse does not come to decide in accordance with whose ruling the halacha follows, nor that the explanation applies only to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but rather the explanation is meant to relate to both opinions. This is the content of the correction.
Let us look at the final correction, the fourth. "There," in that same discourse, on page "89a" in the first column, at letter alef. In the printed edition it was written "the tohu of nekudim; it was corrected to: the tohu of akudim." It is generally known in Kabbalah that the world of tohu is called "nekudim," and that the world of akudim is higher. And here the content of the correction is that in that place the wording should be "the tohu of akudim." One must indeed understand the explanation, for generally the matter of akudim is more elevated; yet this is the correction, and one should examine the discourse from within in order to understand how this settles with the content of the matter.
Let us conclude with an interesting point, to recall things that have been forgotten. As you may remember, in the "Hayom Yom" from the 5th of Tevet until the 20th of Tammuz, we saw throughout the sayings — in most of them — that the Rebbe alludes to the content of the sayings alongside the Rambam's Hilchos Chazakah in order, and this ceased on the 20th of Tammuz. On the 20th of Tammuz, in fact, the fourteenth book of the Rambam concludes, and from the 20th of Tammuz until here, until the 11th of Kislev, there were no allusions to the Rambam. From here, from the 11th of Kislev, we arrive already at the final days of the "Hayom Yom" calendar, and in these days, from here until the end of the calendar, the allusions will be to the last book of the Rambam — Sefer Shoftim. The first laws in Sefer Shoftim are the laws of Sanhedrin. And here is the allusion: the topic of "Rabbanan," whose view is the one to which the content of the explanation in the ma'amar relates, alludes to the matter of the Sanhedrin — which is a general designation for "Rabbanan" — and this is the allusion to the laws of Sanhedrin in Sefer Shoftim of the Rambam.