Room one hundred fourteen in the palace of Hayom Yom.
Sunday, 14 Adar II, Purim, 5703.
In the daily teaching there are several parts: notes on Megillas Esther, the day's study sessions, a story about the Rebbe Maharash, and two more corrections in Torah Or on Megillas Esther.
Let us begin with the first section: "In the reading of the Megillah, we read (8:11) 'laharog ule'abed, ul'harog ule'abed', (9:2): 've'ish lo amad bifneihem, ve'ish lo amad lifneihem'". It is known that in the books of the Tanach there are works of Mesorah, where over the years traditions were established regarding how to write certain letters, sometimes full, sometimes lacking, and sometimes an entirely different letter. There is a Mesorah Gedolah and a Mesorah Ketanah, and in many words in the Tanach there are variations between the traditions; generally we read according to one tradition only and do not relate to the rest.
Here there is something exceptional: in these two verses in the Megillah we want to fulfill our obligation according to the other traditions as well. Since there is a difference, that in one tradition it is written "laharog" without a vav, and in another "ul'harog", and similarly with "bifneihem" or "lifneihem", therefore we read both ways in order to fulfill all opinions.
In this regard, the Rebbe notes the customs of the Chasam Sofer, where it is written that he would repeat in these two verses not only the individual words as is done here, but the entire verse from its beginning, one time in this manner and a second time in the other manner. However, according to what is cited here, we do not repeat only the individual word, but we repeat it with another word; and similarly in the second verse, we repeat four words even though our intention is only for one word, whether with a beis or a lamed.
It is interesting to note that Rabbi Yaakov Landau, who was the first rabbi of Bnei Brak, was a member of the Rebbe Rashab's household and close to the Rebbe Rayatz. He wrote to the Rebbe and testified that he himself read the Megillah together with the Rebbe Rashab, and recounted that once he even read the Megillah in the presence of the Rebbe Rayatz. He testified that the Rebbe Rashab told him before they started reading the Megillah: "By us we do not have the custom to repeat; by us we say 'ul'harog' and 'lifneihem', and we do not repeat."
After seeing the Hayom Yom and the custom cited here, Rabbi Landau wrote to the Rebbe that he had explicitly heard the opposite. The Rebbe replied to him in a letter that apparently there is in this a "mishnah rishonah" (initial teaching) and a "mishnah acharonah" (later teaching). And the proof that this custom was before the eyes of the Rebbe Rayatz is that the Hayom Yom was edited by him, and he saw all the teachings days before the final edit; he also saw this custom and left it exactly as written. Therefore, the Rebbe says that it is possible that indeed in the "mishnah rishonah" they practiced that way, but in the "mishnah acharonah" it is as written here, and this is what should be done.
Let us continue. It is written: "Upon saying 'ha'igeres hazos', 'ha'igeres hazos hasheinis', we shake the Megillah". In the two places in the Megillah where the letter is mentioned and the word "hazos" (this) is said, we shake the Megillah, in order to emphasize that by saying "this letter" we are referring to the letter we hold in our hands, Megillas Esther.
Another note on the tefillah: "The text of Shoshanas Yaakov: 'beruchim kol hatzaddikim'". After the reading of the Megillah, we say the passage "Shoshanas Yaakov", and in this text there are different versions in siddurim. There are siddurim which have written at the end "arurim kol ovdei gilulim, beruchim kol Yisrael", and there are other versions. Here the Rebbe brings that the text for us in the siddur is "beruchim kol hatzaddikim", and not like in other places "beruchim kol Yisrael" or other variations, rather we say "arurim kol hareshaim, beruchim kol hatzaddikim".
The next point: "Shehecheyanu also by day", the berachah of Shehecheyanu that is recited before reading the Megillah. Not only at night, the first time we read the Megillah, do we say Shehecheyanu, but also when we read the Megillah a second time in the morning we recite Shehecheyanu again. Seemingly there is a novelty in this, since the Megillah was already read yesterday, just like a new fruit which, if eaten yesterday, we do not recite Shehecheyanu over when eating it the next morning.
Regarding this matter, there is a dispute in the Shulchan Aruch between the Mechaber and the Rema, in siman 692 in the laws of Purim. The Mechaber rules that by day we do not recite Shehecheyanu, while the Rema writes that by day we do recite it. In the siddur of the Alter Rebbe it is written explicitly, before the order of the berachos for the Megillah: We do not recite Shehecheyanu except at night and not by day, in accordance with the opinion of the Mechaber.
On the other hand, the Tzemach Tzedek in his Responsa relates to this line of his grandfather, the Alter Rebbe. There is an expression of apology there, as if who is he to write something different from his grandfather, etc., but he concludes that one should indeed recite Shehecheyanu by day as well. Even though generally there is a rule that "in a doubt regarding berachos, we are lenient", the Tzemach Tzedek brings that regarding the berachah of Shehecheyanu one can in any case recite it an additional time. And so he ruled practically, and so was the actual custom among our Rebbeim, to recite Shehecheyanu by day as well.
There was once a sichah of the Rebbe in 5749, in which the Rebbe added a further explanation for why one indeed needs to recite Shehecheyanu by day as well: because there is a mitzvah of the mitzvos of Purim, like mishloach manos, which is only by day, and this mitzvah is now being fulfilled for the first time. Therefore one recites Shehecheyanu again and has in mind also the mishloach manos that he is performing now by day. This is an additional reason to recite the berachah. Thus, the Rebbe emphasizes also in Hayom Yom, Shehecheyanu also by day; that despite what is written in the siddur, in practical halachah we take the approach to say Shehecheyanu by day as well.
The next thing is the daily study sessions. We are on Sunday, on which we began a new parashah in the book of Vayikra, Parashas Tzav.
Chumash, Tzav, first aliyah with Rashi's commentary.
Tehillim, 14th of the month, from chapter 72 to chapter 76 inclusive.
Tanya, we are still in chapter 37. The daily lesson is from the words "Zos ve'od", and ends on page 94 with the word "vehachumri".
Following this there is a short story here about the Rebbe Maharash. It is known that the Rebbe Maharash was not in good health, and due to his medical condition, the doctors ordered him to exercise and engage much in handcrafts. Therefore there were many vessels in his house that he crafted himself, works of art to a wondrous degree: a tall menorah the height of a man, various tables with interesting engravings combining wood with other materials. In the Rebbe's room there is until today such a round table, which he made many times. Thus he made many things with the craftsmanship of an artisan.
One of the things he did to occupy his hands was being a sofer STaM. He would write mezuzos and also megillos, and each of his sons received from him as a gift a megillah written in his holy handwriting. One of the megillos is found until today in the Rebbe's library, and there is a photograph of it.
Here the Rebbe points out a particular point. It is known that there are different opinions in halachah regarding how one must do this, and here the Rebbe brings a practical custom, how the Rebbe Maharash acted. And these are the words: "In the Megillah that my master father, my grandfather my teacher and master, wrote", the Rebbe Rayatz is writing this about his grandfather, the Rebbe Maharash, "the ten sons of Haman were not written on a page by themselves". The ten sons of Haman are written in a way that other passages in the Megillah are integrated with them, and not all of them are found on a page by themselves. One can see this in the photograph of the Megillah in the handwriting of the Rebbe Maharash, that not all of the ten sons of Haman are on a page by themselves.
Regarding this matter indeed in the Shulchan Aruch, and in the Ba'er Heitev several methods are cited about this, whether the matter must be on a page by itself, or if it is also possible for it not to be on a page by itself. And practically, as brought here, the Rebbe Maharash's custom was that the ten sons of Haman are not written on a page by themselves but are integrated with the rest. This is one point from the Megillah of the Rebbe Maharash.
An additional thing: "And likewise, not all the pages begin with the word Hamelech". There are many megillos that are written meticulously so that on every page the first word will be "Hamelech", but by the Rebbe Maharash we see that this is not necessarily the case, that not all pages begin with the word "Hamelech". These are two customs relating to the Megillah of the Rebbe Maharash.
To conclude the teaching there are here two corrections on Torah Or, in a maamar on Megillas Esther. These are corrections from among the corrections made by the Rebbe Rashab, and one correction is brought from one of his maamarim. Before the corrections we will briefly state the content; and in order to study this in depth and understand the matter one needs to study the original maamar itself, but regardless we will provide a general background.
In the maamar there it discusses the level of Purim, the aspect of Esther. Concerning Queen Esther the Gemara asks: "Where is Esther indicated in the Torah?", and it answers from the verse "Ve'anochi haster astir panai bayom hahu". There in the maamar he explains which Divine level is hinted at by the name Esther according to Kabbalah, and from what it is concealed. He explains that the words "bayom hahu" hint at the sefirah of Binah, and "panai" hints at the sefirah of Malchus of the world of Atzilus; and the verse hints that Malchus of Atzilus is so elevated that it is concealed from the world of Beriah, from the levels of the world of Beriah.
There is here first of all a correction in which the Rebbe Rashab removes one word, and afterwards a different text in the entire passage. We will read the text. "In Torah Or: the explanation of the dibbur hamaschil 'Yaviu Levush'". In Torah Or there is the maamar dibbur hamaschil "Yaviu Levush Malchus", and on it there are two explanations in Torah Or. In the first explanation, in the "paragraph beginning 'Vehinei Bechinas Levush'", in Torah Or, as is known, there is no division into chapters by the markers of aleph, beis, gimmel, etc., rather the passages are divided, and in order to indicate which passage is being discussed, they indicate the words with which it begins.
How "should it be" written? "Vehi bechinas panai", the aspect being discussed, 'anochi haster astir panai', "vezohi hamistaseres . . . shehi bechinas atik", meaning it is concealed because it is called "atik", for it is removed and more elevated than the world of Beriah, "bechinas sesimu dechol sesimin", it is completely hidden. In the printed source before us, before the words "bechinas sesimu dechol sesimin", there is another word "hi"; and here the Rebbe Rashab removes the word "hi". This is one correction.
Besides this "and there is another version", an entire version in the whole sequence of the quote from the maamar. We will state orally what the difference is between the two versions. In both of them, what is concealed? The aspect of the sefirah of Malchus. And the whole difference between them is: why is the sefirah of Malchus referred to in the verse as "panai"?
Let us look at the second version. How does it begin? "Vehinei bechinas bayom hahu". The verse says "ve'anochi haster astir panai bayom hahu". What is the level "bayom hahu"? "Hu bechinas Binah"; the sefirah of Binah is called "bayom hahu", and it is called "hu bechinas Ima Ila'ah" (Abba is Chochmah and Ima is Binah). In which world does the sefirah of Binah shine in particular? "Hamekanenes biBeriah", it is known that the world of Atzilus is primarily the sefirah of Chochmah, and the world of Beriah is primarily the sefirah of Binah. One of the appellations of the world of Beriah is "the world of the throne", "bechursaya", and this is also connected to the sefirah of Binah.
Thus, "bayom hahu" is Binah, but there is something concealed from Binah. What is concealed? "Panai". And what is "panai"? "Achen Malchus de'Atzilus", which is higher than Binah of the world of Beriah, and therefore it is concealed from Binah. And if so, how is it categorized? "Na'aseh atik le'Beriah", it is considered atik, removed and separated from Beriah, "shene'etak vegavoha mi'Beriah". Malchus of Atzilus is removed and higher than the world of Beriah, "ve'einah ba'ah behisgalus be'olam ha'Beriah"; the world of Beriah does not receive the revelation of Malchus of Atzilus, "she'afilu mibechinas 'bayom hahu'" even this level of the Binah of the world of Beriah "hu bibechinas he'elem vehester" it does not grasp this aspect of Malchus of Atzilus.
"Umah shene'emar astir panai sheken nikra Mal' de'Atzi'" And why is Malchus of Atzilus called "panai", as it is said "astir panai"? Here the Rebbe Rashab explains, and this is the difference between the first and second version. What does he explain in this version? "Sheken nikra Malchus de'Atzilus", why is it called by the name "panai"? "Lefi shemekabeles mikol ha'Yud sefiros".
We will state the point briefly. In the sefirah of Malchus, as in every sefirah, there are ten sefiros. In the sefirah of Malchus itself there is Keser of Malchus, Chochmah of Malchus, Binah of Malchus and so forth. From where does Malchus receive its entity? For regarding Malchus it is said that "it has nothing of its own", and it receives from the supernal sefiros. And from which sefirah? From every sefirah it takes its point: from Keser, which has everything in it, including Malchus of Keser, Malchus takes the Malchus of Keser, and for it this becomes "Keser of Malchus"; from Chochmah, which has Malchus in it, it takes the Malchus of Chochmah, and for it this becomes "Chochmah of Malchus", and so forth. Therefore it is called "panai", because it takes the point of all ten sefiros, as it were, the innerness (pnimiyus) of all ten sefiros is revealed in it.
Let us see the text as he says it here briefly. He says: "Lefi shehi mekabeles mikol ha'Yud sefiros", and details: "Mimalchus de'Keser de'Atzilus", in Keser there is Malchus, and what does Malchus receive from Keser? "Na'aseh Keser Malchus"; it takes from Keser the Malchus within it, and this becomes Keser for it. And a second example from the next sefirah: "Umimalchus shebeChochmah", in Chochmah there are all ten, and the Malchus of Chochmah "na'aseh Chochmah shebeMalchus, etc.", and similarly with all the sefiros. Therefore Malchus of Atzilus is called "panai", because the innerness of all the middos illuminates in it.
This is the difference: in the first version he explains why it is called "panai", because Keser illuminates in it; and in the second version why it is called "panai", because all the sefiros give it their inner entity. In any case, this level is so elevated, and it is "astir panai bayom hahu", concealed even from the aspect of Binah that illuminates in the world of Beriah. This is the point.