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.
