33
CHOF
MENACHEM AV
WHICH
FAMILY BROUGHT WOOD ON AV 20?1
The
date Av 20 is mentioned only once in the Talmud,2 in tractate Taanis.
There the Mishnah relates that this was a holiday for the descendants
of Pachas Moav ben Yehudah, for on that day they would bring an
offering of wood in the Beit HaMikdash.
To
explain: At one time, there was a shortage of wood in the Beis
HaMikdash, and several families agreed to donate wood for the altar.
When the wood which one family brought was used up, another family
brought more. In commemoration of their generosity, our Sages
ordained that even when there was enough wood, the descendants of
these families would bring wood on the days when their ancestors had,
and their wood would be used on that day. These families would
celebrate the day as a holiday.3
____________________________
1.
The yahrzeit of the Chassid, sage and Kabbalist, R. Levi YitzchakSchneerson, the Rebbe's father. He passed away in exile in the city
of Alma Atta, Kazakstan, in the year 5704 (1944). An overview of his
life has been published in Kovetz Lubavitch, issue 4.
2.
Taanis 26a. Av 20 is also 40 days before Rosh HaShanah. In the
customs of the Kehillah Kadishah Beis E-l Yachbutz (printed i n the
text Divrei Shalom), it is written that on Av 20 vows should be
annulled, because this date is 40 days before Rosh HaShanah. This is
not a custom followed i n Chabad. It is stated that Rosh Chodesh Elul
begins the service of preparation for Yom Kippur, for i t is 40 days
before that holiday. Significantly, Yechezkel 40:1
refers
to Yom Kippur as Rosh HaShanah. See Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 58a.
3.
See Taanis 28a, and Rashi, Taanis 12a, entry SheYom Tov.
34
LIKKUTEI SICHOS
There
are two opinions regarding the identity of the descendants of Pachas
Moav ben Yehudah, the family who brought the wood offering on Av 20.4
Rabbi Meir maintains that they were "the descendants of David
ben Yehudah," i.e., of King David. Rabbi Yossi, by contrast,
maintains that they were the descendants of Yoev ben Tzeruyah,
commander of King David's armies.
This
passage raises a fundamental question. How is i t possible for there
to be two correct opinions regarding an historical fact? With regard
to other differences of opinion in the Talmud, we are told: "These
and these are the words of the living God,"5 i.e., both opinions
communicate spiritual truth. But how can this maxim apply with regard
to a point of history? One could answer that the difference of
opinion between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi does not concern
historical fact, for the descendants of Pachas Moav ben Yehudah were
related to both David and Yoev,
since
the two families married together and thus their lineage was
intertwined.6 The difference of opinion between the Sages centers on
which of the two families should be given precedence. Rabbi Meir
maintains that it was the merit of King David which prompted them to
bring wood to the altar, while Rabbi Yossi maintains that it was
Yoev's virtues that spurred this initiative.
WHEN
WOOD CAN NO LONGER BE CUT
To
understand the above, it is necessary to explain the problems
inherent in bringing wood on Av 20, and why it was necessary to have
ancestral merit to bring wood on that
______________________________________________
4.
Taanis 28a.
5.
Eruvin 13b; Gittin 6b. See also Zohar, Vol. I I I , p. 6b.
6.
To cite a parallel, our Sages (Sotah 43a) cite two interpretations
regarding the identity of Putiel: that the name refers to Yisro, or
that i t refers to Yosef. Our Sages reconcile the two interpretations
by explaining that the two families intermarried.
CHOF
MENACHEM AV 35
day.
Our Sages relate7 that from Av 15 on, the power of the sun wanes and
trees would no longer be cut down for use on the altar. Their wood
would not dry in time, and thus could become worm-infested and thus
unfit for the altar.8
Av
20 was the first time that wood was brought after Av 15. Thus this
wood had to have been cut beforehand. Moreover, the family bringing
it would have had to have this offering in mind even before the wood
was needed. They had to have considered the matter thoroughly and
made preparations. 9
Therefore,
the importance of the wood offering brought on Av 20 (and similarly,
that brought by the family responsible for the delivery on Elul 20),
surpassed that of earlier wood offerings brought by other families.
For the other families had the opportunity to cut down other wood
after bringing their offerings.
Thus
bringing wood on Av 20 required unique virtue. Our Sages differed as
regards whose hereditary qualities spawned this virtue.10
______________________________
7.
Taanis 31a.
8.
Middos 2:5; Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Issurei Mizbeach 6:2.
9.
This reflects the advantage their wood offering possessed over the
offering brought by the descendants of Saneah on Av 15 itself. For on
Av 15, there was no need to consider the matter beforehand and make
preparations. Moreover, on Av 15, there was still time to cut new
wood. Although our Sages' expression "From Av 15 onwards, the
power of the sun wanes" might appear to indicate that on the
15th itself no trees should be cut, this is not so. On the 15th,
trees for the altar were also cut, as the Rashbam (Bava Batra 121b)
comments: "That day (Av 15), they would complete a great mitzvah
(the cutting of the wood for the altar)."
10.
A similar concept applies with regard to the difference of opinion i
n the Talmud about the identity of the descendants of Adin, who
brought a wood offering on Elul 20. These considerations do not apply
to the descendants of Paroush, who brought their wood offering on the
first of Teves. Two distinctions can be made: a) This was not the
first time they brought wood to the Beis HaMikdash, for they had
previously brought wood on Av 5. As such, i t d id not present as
great a challenge, for "all beginnings are difficult"
(Mechilta, Rashi, Shmos 19:5).
36
LIKKUTEI SICHOS
GIVING
WITH SELF-SACRIFICE
There
is another factor involved. The wood these families originally
brought to the Beit Ha'Mikdash was not itself a sacrifice; it was
needed so that others could bring sacrifices. Thus the sacrifices
offered with the wood this family brought were not necessarily their
own, nor were they only communal offerings in which they had a share.
Instead, the wood was for the sacrifices of the entire Jewish people.
Moreover,
among the sacrifices offered with this wood were guilt offerings and
sin offerings brought by people seeking atonement. Nevertheless,
these families took the trouble to plan ahead, not for themselves,
but to help others — including those guilty of sins — offer
sacrifices and gain atonement.
They
gave up something which could not be replaced to help a sinful
person, and did so with joy. So great was their happiness that this
day was considered a festival for that family. 11
So
the Sages asked: Did the virtue to make such sacrifices stem from
King David or from Yoev ben Tzeruyah?
THE
SWORD OF IRON AND THE SWORD OF TORAH
Our
Sages teach:12 "Were it not for David's [Torah study], Yoev
would not have been able to wage war. And were it not for Yoev, King
David would not have been able to study the Torah." For Yoev's
success in war came as a result of David's
______________________________________
b)
They did not volunteer to bring the wood on the first of Teves.
Rather, they were chosen by lot (Tosafos Yom Tov, Taanis 4:5).
11.
The above concepts share a connection to the Divine service of my
revered father and teacher, whose yahrzeit falls on this date.
Without thinking of his greatness as a scholar i n both the Talmudic
and mystic disciplines of Torah study, my revered father and teacher
sacrificed himself to spread the observance of Torah and strengthen
Jewish practice even among simple people. And this despite the fact
that he suffered great hardships as a result, including exile to
remote Kazakstan. Yet he carried out this service w i t h joy.
12.
Sanhedrin 49a.
CHOF
MENACHEM AV 37
efforts
in Torah study. And conversely, it was only because Yoev could
replace him at the front that King David was able to study without
disruption.13
Indeed,
the fact that both concepts arise from the same verse indicates that
they share a connection.14 Thus it can be said that it was not only
that King David's merit helped Yoev be successful, but that Yoev had
a share in King David's Torah study. For had Yoev not been successful
at war, David would not have been able to study. Because of this
symbiosis, King David's Torah study helped Yoev.
The
Divine service of both King David and Yoev was characterized by
bittul and Mesirut Nefesh. There was, however, a difference in focus.
King David expressed these qualities through Torah study. This
elevated his study, for there is an advantage to Torah study
characterized by bittul.
And
therefore our Sages interpreted15 the verse:16 "And God was with
him [David]" as "the Halachah follows his opinion."
Yoev's
bittul and self-sacrifice, by contrast, involved worldly matters,
helping make a dwelling for God in this material world by waging war
against the gentile nations that opposed this ideal.
All
the qualities of holiness are interrelated. Therefore, David's and
Yoev's Divine service complemented one another.17 The wars Yoev waged
helped David study, and David's study brought Yoev success in battle.
Each one, however, had his primary area of focus: David's being Torah
_______________________________
13.
See the interpretation of the Maharsha to that passage.
14.
See the sichah to Parshas Toldos i n this series, (Likkutei Sichos,
Vol. VI,) where this concept is discussed.
15.
Sanhedrin 93b. See the maamarim entitled Vayidaber and BaYom
HaSheini, 5627.
16.
I Shmuel 18:12.
17.
Therefore the name Adino HaEtzani refers to either King David or Yoev
(Rashi, Taanis 28a). For as Moed Kattan 16b explains this name
alludes to both the thrusts of Torah study and waging war.
38
LIKKUTEI SICHOS
study,
removed from involvement in worldly affairs, while Yoev was involved
with the world, waging war. This is the focus of the difference of
opinion between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi. The name Meir ( מאיר
) relates
to the Hebrew word or ( אור
) meaning
"light."1 8 Rabbi Meir's
approach
focused on that which transcends the darkness of our world.
Therefore, he placed the emphasis on King David's Torah study.19
The
name Yossi ( יוסי
), by
contrast, is numerically equivalent to G-d's name E-lohim (20)
א-להים
which
itself is equivalent to the word hateva ( הטבע
),
"nature."21 For Rabbi Yossi's Divine service related to the
Divine energies that maintain the natural order. Therefore he placed
the emphasis on Yoev, whose Divine service involved waging war to
refine the natural order.22
_____________________________________
18.
See Eruvin 13a.
19.
As a reflection of this, i n Rabbi Meir's Torah scroll, instead of
כתנות
עור ("garments
of leather"), i t was found wr i t ten כתנות
אור ("garments
of light"), (Bereishis Rabbah 20:12) i.e., the material world
did not cause concealment for h im (Derech Mitzvosecha, p. 8a). This
represented a level similar to that experienced by Adam before the
sin of the Tree of Knowledge (see Torah Or 5b). For that reason,
Rabbi Meir was able to find rationales that enabled h im to rule that
the impure was pure (Eruvin, loc. cit., as explained i n Likkutei
Torah, Vayikra, p. 24d).
20.
Zohar, Vol. I I I , p. 223a; see also Sanhedrin 56a, and the series
of maamarim entitled VeKachah 5637, sec. 80. There the differences of
opinion between Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehudah are discussed. It is
thus evident that Rabbi Yehudah also reflects a level of G-dliness
that transcends the refinement of our worldly environment. Thus Rabbi
Yehudah ( יהודה
),
as his name implies, was associated wi t h the Divine service of
hoda'ah ( ה
ו ד א ה )
, thankful acknowledgment, whi ch relates to the sefirah of Malchus
(Torah Or, p. 44a). For i t is possible to explain that his Divine
service represented the thankful acknowledgment and bittul that
characterizes yichudah ila'ah (see VeKachah, loc. cit.; see also
Torah Or, p. 45d). A parallel can be found in the bittul manifested
by King David (who is also identified w i t h the Sefirah of Malchus)
during the study of Torah. Therefore, w i t h regard to the identity
of the descendants of A d i n (Taanis 28a), Rabbi Yehudah follows
Rabbi Meir's opinion.
21.
Pardes, Shaar 12, ch. 2; From the Sheloh, Shaar HaOsios, Os Kedushah,
p. 89A, i n the note, i t appears that the source for this concept is
i n the Zohar.
CHOF
MENACHEM AV 39
THE
PRESENT OR THE FUTURE?
The
difference of opinion between these two Sages can be explained from
another perspective.
In
several places,23 we find a difference of opinion between the
Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud as to whether it is
necessary to undertake a slight difficulty so that afterwards a great
benefit will result. The Jerusalem Talmud maintains that since the
benefit is much greater than the difficulty, one must undertake the
difficulty despite the fact that it will take time for the benefit to
appear.
The
Babylonian Talmud, by contrast, maintains that the present situation
is the determinant factor. Since the difficulty is immediate and the
advantage — although significantly greater — will take time to
manifest itself, there is no obligation to undertake the difficulty.
To
relate this concept to the issue at hand: The advantage of King David
studying Torah without worry is much greater than the difficulty
which Yoev undertook by going to war. Nevertheless, David's Torah
study came afterwards, and was dependent on Yoev's going to war.
Therefore, the approach of the Jerusalem Talmud would oblige Yoev to
undertake this
______________________________________
22.
Both these thrusts of Divine service are alluded to i n the mishnah
in Taanis which mentions the descendants of Pachas Moav ben Yehudah
as the family that brought wood on Av 20. The name Pachas Moav refers
to Ruth, the Moabitess (Rashi and Tosafos, Taanis, loc. cit.). Her
status as a convert alludes to the service of refining material
existence. The name Yehudah, as explained above i n note 20, relates
to the revelation of light.
Both
David and Yoev descended from Ruth and Yehudah, and therefore both
were involved in these two thrusts of Divine service. For David also
waged wars, and Yoev also studied Torah. Because of this
interrelation, they each assisted the other. Nevertheless, King
David's primary thrust was Torah study, while the primary thrust of
Yoev was refining the world. 23. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IV, p.
1336ff., where this concept is explained.
40
LIKKUTEI SICHOS
difficulty.
According to the Babylonian Talmud, Yoev had made a sacrifice which
was not incumbent upon him. Therefore Rabbi Meir, whose approach
reflects light — which correlates with the Jerusalem Talmud, whose
style of presentation is one of direct light2 4 — maintains that
primary importance should be ascribed to King David, for it is
through his Torah study that the spiritual heights were reached, and
Yoev was obligated to play his part in facilitating this process.
Rabbi
Yossi, whose approach emphasizes the refinement of material existence
— which correlates with the approach of the Babylonian Talmud,
whose style of presentation is associated25 with the verse:26 "You
placed me in darkness,"24 since it involves a process of
clarification through questions and paradoxes — maintains that
since Yoev was acting on his own initiative, the primary advantage is
his.
DOING
SOMETHING FOR OTHERS
To
relate the above to our own Divine service: Even when a person
possesses something which, like the wood for the altar, cannot be
replaced, he must be prepared to sacrifice it to help another Jew —
even a person who must bring a sin offering. Moreover, he must make
these efforts even if they never bring recognition. Furthermore, he
should consider this such a great merit that the day will be
considered a joyous festival for him and his family.
In
order for this feeling to be perpetuated among one's descendants —
both physical and spiritual, as our Sages' comment:27 "'Your
sons,' these are your students" — one's own conduct has to be
permeated by mesirus nefesh. This applies both to a person whose
Divine service centers on Torah study and to one whose service
involves the refinement of the world.
______________________________________
24.
Shaarei Orah of the Mitteler Rebbe, p. 44ff.
25.
Sanhedrin 24a.
26.
Eichah 3:5.
27.
Sifri, Vaes'chanan 6:7.
CHOF
MENACHEM AV 41
This
will enable us to raise a generation prepared to give up its own
possessions for the sake of other Jews, and to do so with happiness.
Such ahavas yisrael, not motivated by intellect, but stemming from
one's own initiative,28 will atone for the unwarranted hatred which
led to the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash,29 and will speed the
coming of the true and complete Redemption. May it come in the
immediate future.
(Adapted
from Sichos Chof Av, 5711)
In Memory of the R. Levi Yitzchack Schneersohn
______________________________
28.
Ahavas chinam i n Hebrew. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. I I , p. 598, and
the sources
mentioned
there.
29.
Yoma 9b.
