The fourteenth "cheder" in the Hayom Yom palace.
Friday, 3 Tevet, 8th day of Chanukah, 5703.
Lessons: Chumash, Miketz, Shishi, with Rashi's commentary.
Tehillim, 3rd of the month, from chapter 18 through chapter 22 inclusive.
Tanya: On this day we conclude chapter 4, from the words "velachein amru" ("and therefore they said") until the end of the chapter with the words "chesed umayim."
In today's teaching, two corrections and emendations are brought regarding maamarim in the sefer Torah Or. It is known that in the copy of Torah Or that the Rebbe Rashab used, he made corrections in his holy handwriting on certain maamarim, and corrected quite a number of things; and from these corrections the Rebbe was accustomed to copy and bring in Hayom Yom.
Let us examine the first correction. The wording of the "Hayom Yom": "In Torah Or, in the discourse beginning Tanu Rabbanan, mitzvat ner Chanukah" — the text written there is "for all the judgments are not worthy," and the correction is that it should read "for all the judgments are worthy."
This is the background to the matter: The Gemara in tractate Chagigah (folio 15b) relates the story of Elisha ben Avuya, who is called "Acher." It was said of him in the Heavenly court that after his death he would not be judged — he would not be judged in Gehinnom, nor would he be brought into Gan Eden. The Gemara explains that he would not be judged in Gehinnom because he had engaged in Torah, yet he would not enter Gan Eden because he had sinned. Regarding this, Rabbi Meir said: Better that he be judged with the torments of Gehinnom so that he could afterward enter Gan Eden.
In the maamar in Torah Or, in parashas Mikeitz, in one of the Chanukah maamarim whose dibbur hamaschil is "Tanu rabanan mitzvas ner Chanukah," it is explained in the first chapter the greatness of the level of the neshamos in Gan Eden, that they attain very great G-dly comprehensions. And on this basis one understands the words of Rabbi Meir concerning Acher — why he said that it was worthwhile for him to be judged in Gehinnom so that he might merit to enter Gan Eden. The wording of the maamar is: "For all the judgments are not worthwhile against the pleasure of his comprehension." And the Rebbe Rashab corrects that the word "not" should be removed, and it should read "For all the judgments are worthwhile" — meaning that "worthwhile" is in the sense of being worth: all the judgments he would have in Gehinnom are worthwhile in order that he might afterward be able to enter the revelation of Gan Eden. This is the first correction.
This portion of the teaching has a special connection to the daily Tanya lesson of 3 Tevet — the conclusion of chapter 4, in which it is explained that the soul in Gan Eden delights in the radiance of the Shechinah, the pleasure of comprehension that the soul experiences in Gan Eden. Here too, the content of the Rebbe Rashab's tikkun concerns the great virtue the soul possesses when, in Gan Eden, it attains all the comprehensions — which is why all the judgments and sufferings are worthwhile in order to reach this. This is the first tikkun.
And now to the second correction: "in the biur to the discourse beginning Rani ve'simchi." In that same parashah, Mikeitz, in Torah Or, among the Chanukah discourses there is a maamar whose dibbur-hamaschil is the verse "Rani ve'simchi bas Tziyon" (Sing and rejoice, daughter of Zion). Afterward — as is very common in the discourses of Torah Or and Likkutei Torah — there is a "biur" on the maamar, an additional discourse that elucidates the previous one. And in this biur on "Rani ve'simchi bas Tziyon," in the second section that begins with the words "ve'atah na bo," the correction is found.
[Incidentally, an interesting point: one of the notable differences between Likkutei Torah and Torah Or. All of them are maamarim of the Alter Rebbe — Torah Or on the books of Bereishis and Shemos, and Likkutei Torah on Vayikra, Bamidbar, Devarim, and Shir HaShirim. In Likkutei Torah the maamar is divided into chapters, and before each chapter its number is marked with a letter (chapter 2, 3, 4, and so on); whereas in Torah Or, although there is a division into chapters, no letters are marked on the chapters, but rather each chapter opens with letters in a large font. Therefore, when the Rebbe here brings a correction relating to the second chapter of the maamar, he does not write "section 2," but rather "the section beginning ve'atah na bo" — since this is the only possible way to indicate the beginning of the section, given that it has no lettered numbering.]
In the second section of the elucidation on "Rani vesimchi," near its very end, the discourse speaks of the greatness of Mashiach, and brings the verse said concerning him: "Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high." And why does it cite this verse? It explains, in the language of the maamar: "meaning, from the pnimiyus of Atik" — the well-known Atik is the pnimiyus of the Kesser, and the greatness of Mashiach is from the pnimiyus of Atik itself — "which is the pnimiyus of aleph aleph," and it concludes thus: "there will be the greatness of Mashiach." "Aleph aleph" are initials, usually standing for "Arich Anpin."
And the Rebbe corrects that the acronym should be, not "alef-alef," but rather "alef-samech," which stands for "Ein Sof" — meaning that it is the pnimiyus of Ein Sof. For it is not fitting to say "pnimiyus Arich Anpin," since "Arich" is a lower level than "Atik"; and if it was previously stated that Mashiach is from the pnimiyus of Atik, it is not fitting that it should afterward say "in the pnimiyus of Arich," which is a lower level. Therefore he corrects: instead of "pnimiyus alef-alef" it should be "pnimiyus alef-samech," which are the initials of "pnimiyus Ein Sof."
What do we learn from all these corrections? What does the Rebbe wish to convey through them? The Rebbe desires to encourage everyone to study the daily lessons — and this is one of the purposes of the "Hayom Yom." There are the daily lessons in Chitas (Chumash, Tehillim, Tanya), and there is the daily lesson in the chassidic portion found in "Torah Or" or "Likkutei Torah." This week's chassidic portion is Parshas Mikeitz, in which one studies the maamarim of Mikeitz; and in the course of the study there are corrections, which the Rebbe notes. Through the very act of these corrections he conveys the message that one must study the chassidic portion, so that this directive will be fulfilled.
It is worth noting another interesting point: On Simchat Torah 5731, during the meals held in the apartment of Rabbi Aryeh, the Rebbe related that when the Likkutei Torah was printed in the time of the Rebbe Rashab, the printer worked on the book before it went to press and managed to make thousands of corrections in the maamarim, so that everything entered the printing in an orderly and corrected form.
In principle, it is a wonderful thing that the sefer is more accurate. But the Rebbe related that one of the chassidim, Rav David Tzvi Chen — "the Radatz Chen," rav of Chernigov — was not at all pleased with the correction. Why? He argued that when the Rebbe delivers a maamar in Likkutei Torah, the student must toil over it; and part of that toil is that he gets stuck on a word that is unclear, struggles, and it takes him a long time until he understands its meaning. "And now," he said, "that we have corrected all the printing errors, he no longer has the opportunity to toil, and everything flows for him like water" — and therefore he held that it would have been better had it not been corrected.
However, the Rebbe, years later, in 5740, on Shabbos Parshas Vayetze, referred to the continuation of the story and said that this is fitting for a chassid of the caliber of Reb Dovid Tzvi Chen, who toils and exerts himself even when he does not understand; but in principle, for chassidim of our standing, it is known what is written — that a book must be proofread and corrected. And if a book is not corrected — as is written regarding a Sefer Torah, that if it is not proofread it is forbidden to use it and forbidden to leave it as is, but rather one must correct it. And with sefarim of Chassidus, on the contrary, one must make all the corrections, and still one will need to toil to understand the content of the matters; but the corrections themselves are certainly necessary corrections. And this the Rebbe wishes to introduce here in the daily teaching — that one must definitely know what the corrections in the "Hayom Yom" are, and one should not get stuck in the study, but rather the matters must be clear and refined through this saying. This is the conclusion of the daily saying.