"Room" three hundred seventy-seven in the palace of Day-by-Day.
Thursday, the 12th of Kislev, 5704 (1943).
Lessons: Chumash, Vayishlach, fifth aliyah, with Rashi's commentary.
Psalms, on the 12th of the month, one recites chapters 66, 67, and 68.
Tanya, we continue with Kuntres Acharon. We are in the fourth section of Kuntres Acharon, in its eleventh part until the end, beginning on page 316, from the words "u'mah she'kasuv b'Etz Chaim," until page 159, at the words "shochen etc. v'dai la'mevin."
The daily saying contains two parts: the first part relates to a custom connected with bar mitzvah, and the second part is a saying, as on every day. The first part deals with bar mitzvah — it is known that when the boy reaches the age of thirteen and goes up to the Torah for the first time, his father recites the blessing "Baruch shepetarani." Here the Rebbe brings: "The blessing of shepetarani is recited without Shem and Malchus" — one says "Baruch shepetarani" without "Baruch atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech ha'olam."
It is interesting to add that our Rebbeim themselves, when they recited this blessing at their son's bar-mitzvah, recited it with Sheim uMalchus [i.e., invoking G-d's Name and Kingship]; yet it is explicit that this is not a directive for the public. The Rebbe Rashab also directed one who had a bar-mitzvah, and so too the Rebbe Rayatz, to recite it without Sheim uMalchus. This is likewise brought in the Rema, to recite it without Sheim uMalchus.
In practice, in the siddurim, the blessing is printed with God's name and kingship, for the Rebbe Rayatz instructed the Rebbe not to change it and to leave it in print with God's name and kingship. Only in siddurim printed from 5716 (1956) onward is there an asterisk next to the blessing, indicating that our custom is to recite it without God's name and kingship, even though in the siddur it is printed with God's name and kingship.
The reason for the difference — why our Rebbeim, our leaders, conducted themselves differently — is not written, but it is interesting to note the words of the responsa "Chatan Sofer," who writes something fascinating: only one who is confident in himself that he has raised his son properly may recite the blessing "sheptarani" with G-d's Name and Kingship, since from now on the responsibility passes to the son; but one who is not completely certain that he carried out the upbringing one hundred percent properly — is not entirely absolved, and the responsibility for the situation still rests upon him. And perhaps this is the reason for the difference, that our Rebbeim, our leaders, recited the blessing with G-d's Name and Kingship, but the directive to the public is to recite it without G-d's Name and Kingship. This is the first section.
The following passage: "She is blessed also on Monday, Thursday, on Rosh Chodesh, and not specifically on Shabbat." As is known, regarding the bar mitzvah of the Mitteler Rebbe it is told that the Alter Rebbe said in the name of the Maggid in the name of the Baal Shem Tov, that the boy's first aliyah to the Torah for his bar mitzvah — whether it is on Monday or Thursday, or at Shabbat Mincha — is a special time of favor (eit ratzon). It is understood that if the first aliyah is on these days, and not specifically on Shabbat morning, and at the first aliyah the father recites the blessing "Baruch shepatrani," then the blessing is not connected specifically to Shabbat but rather to the first aliyah to the Torah. Therefore, even if it actually falls out on other days — Monday, Thursday, or Rosh Chodesh — one recites this blessing then as well, "Baruch shepatrani."
Following this custom, a brief saying of the Rebbe Rayatz is brought, whose source is a letter that the Rebbe Rayatz wrote on the 4th of Tammuz 5700. And this is the wording of the saying: "We have a tradition in the name of our teacher the Baal Shem Tov: when one hears something not good about a fellow Jew—even if one does not know him—one must feel great pain." That is to say, when someone comes to relate something not good about another Jew, even if you do not know that person about whom the story is being told, the Baal Shem Tov says that when one hears such a thing, it should cause you great distress.
In the original letter, the Rebbe Rayatz adds here two words in Yiddish, whose meaning is that this is not merely "great distress" but "taking it to heart"; and the Rebbe omitted this addition here. And why must one be greatly distressed? On this the Baal Shem Tov elaborates: "for one of them is surely not good" — as he explains, one of them, whether the one relating the matter or the one about whom it is related, is surely not in a good state, and there is a problem here.
How so? The Baal Shem Tov explains: "If the thing they are saying about so-and-so is true — then it is not good." If the story is accurate, that this is indeed what happened, then it is not a good thing — not good for the one telling it, nor for the one being spoken about: about the one being spoken about, they are saying something that is in itself a problem, since they related about him something that is not good, and surely it should pain you that such-and-such happened to so-and-so, or that he stumbled in such-and-such; and the teller himself is also not a great tzaddik, for he is speaking lashon hara, and lashon hara is a problem. If so, there is a problem here both with the teller and with the one being spoken about.
And he adds: "And if it is not true — behold, the teller is in a bad state." If the story is untrue, then it is consequently untrue regarding the person about whom it is told, and he is not in trouble nor in a bad state; the only one in trouble here is the teller alone, for he is in a bad state, since he is spreading a false rumor — something even more severe than lashon hara. Therefore, whatever the situation may be, there is a problem here, and so the Baal Shem Tov says that one must feel great distress.
Continuing from what we saw at the beginning, let us return and connect to the Rambam. The daily saying corresponds to the second group of laws in Sefer Shoftim: the first laws, which we saw the day before, are the Laws of Sanhedrin, and the laws that follow them are the Laws of Testimony. The entire concept of the Laws of Testimony — that witnesses testify about something that happened — is essentially the whole content of the saying: someone testifies and relates a certain thing about another person. And how must one relate to this account, to this testimony? As the Baal Shem Tov said: if it is a problematic account, there is surely much distress here, as we saw.