128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
Parshas Bo
Yud Shevat – [OCR unclear] … my master and teacher, the Rebbe Rayatz (Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak), may his soul rest in Eden, may his merit shield us
1. In today's Sidrah the Torah relates that G‑d commanded that a lamb be taken on the tenth day of Nissan, kept in the house for several days, and on the fourteenth day slaughtered and offered as the Korban Pesach (Passover offering). Why did they need to take the lamb on the tenth day? Our Sages say: so that when the Egyptians would see the lamb with the Jews and would ask, "Why are you keeping it in the house?", the Jews should not be intimidated, and should answer: "We are keeping the lamb in the house in order to slaughter it and offer it as a sacrifice."
The Egyptians worshipped the lamb; it was their idol (that is why Moshe Rabbeinu said to Pharaoh, "הן נזבח גו' ולא יסקלונו גו'" ("Behold, if we sacrifice … will they not stone us?")). Nevertheless, G‑d commanded them to keep the lamb in the house for four days, and to the questions of the Egyptians they were to answer: we will slaughter it and offer it to G‑d.
The firmness – the strength – and the self-sacrifice (mesirus nefesh) that the Jews had in not being intimidated by the Egyptians, is what brought the Redemption. As our Sages say, at the time of the Exodus the Jews were "naked" of mitzvos, as it is written, "ואת ערום ועריה" ("and you were naked and bare"), and "הללו עובדי עבודה זרה והללו עובדי עבודה זרה" ("these are idol worshippers and these are idol worshippers"); so G‑d gave them the mitzvah of the Korban Pesach, and in the merit of this mitzvah, together with the self-sacrifice they had in it, they were redeemed from Egypt.
2. It is written:1 "כימי צאתך מארץ מצרים אראנו נפלאות" ("As in the days of your going out of the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders"). That is, the Redemption from Egypt is an analogy for the future Redemption. Since it is an analogy of the Torah, it is understood that the very things that brought about the Exodus from Egypt will also bring about the future Redemption – as is known, in an analogy of the Torah all the details of the analogy correspond precisely to the thing it illustrates.2
Just as the Exodus from Egypt came about through firmness – strength – and self-sacrifice, so too the future Redemption will come about through our going with firmness and self-sacrifice.
3. If all the mitzvos must be done with firmness, then all the more so the mitzvah of Ahavas Yisrael (love of a fellow Jew) – "יסוד כל התורה" ("the foundation of the entire Torah")3 – certainly must be done with firmness, without being intimidated by anyone.
One must speak with a Jew about Torah and mitzvos, and if it does not have an effect, one must speak to him once again. Even if the other person "kicks," one must still not be put off. On the contrary, the very fact that he kicks is a proof4 that it touches him. Therefore one must speak with him again and again, until it takes hold with him.
One must go with firmness. One must indeed speak "בדברי נחת" ("with pleasant words") so that it will be accepted (and as the saying of my father-in-law, the Rebbe: one must not tear the other person's nose off) – but with firmness. And when one speaks pleasantly and with firmness, one will succeed.
And as for the fact that so far he has not succeeded, he must know that the fault lies not with the other person but with himself. The other person is fine; it is only that with him these are not "דברים היוצאים מן הלב" ("words that come from the heart") – and that is why the second half is missing: "נכנסים אל הלב" ("enter the heart"). He should say a chapter of Tehillim so that his words will come from the heart, and then automatically they will enter the heart.
4. And just as at the time of the Exodus, through the firmness of the Jews in not being intimidated by the Egyptians, they went out of Egypt and also took with them the silver and gold of the Egyptians, and the Egyptians were all drowned, as it is written, "לא נשאר בהם עד אחד" ("not even one of them remained") – and even the one who did remain, Pharaoh, later came to Nineveh, and there too he had troubles5 –
so too now: when we go with firmness and self-sacrifice, not intimidated by anyone, all opponents will be nullified, and the future Redemption will come speedily in our days.
(From the sichos of Acharon shel Pesach, 5712)
5. In Parshas HaChodesh there is also the mitzvah of eating matzah – "שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו" ("Seven days you shall eat matzos").
The mitzvah of eating matzah has remained a Biblical (de'Oraisa) obligation even in our times.
In general there are three main things on Pesach: the Pesach offering, matzah, and maror. In our times, the Pesach offering is no more than "ונשלמה פרים שפתינו" ("let our lips substitute for the bulls"). The mitzvah of eating maror is only Rabbinic, but the mitzvah of eating matzah is Biblical even in our times.6
6. The difference between chametz and matzah lies in two respects:
a) With chametz the dough rises; with matzah the dough remains as it is. In spiritual terms this means: chametz – self-importance and haughtiness; matzah – self-nullification (bittul).
That is why the main point of matzah is specifically "לחם עוני" ("bread of poverty"): the concept of matzah is bittul, and this is expressed specifically in bread of poverty. Although one may also eat matzah ashirah ("rich" matzah), one can fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah only with bread of poverty.7
The matzah that the Jews ate in Egypt was also bread of poverty.
b) Matzah and chametz are composed of the same letters, except that matzah has a hei and chametz has a ches.
The letter hei is similar to the letter ches. Both consist of three strokes and are open at the bottom. The only difference is that a ches is completely closed on all three sides, while a hei has an opening at the top.
The opening at the bottom (in both letters) signifies "לפתח חטאת רובץ" ("sin crouches at the door"). The closing on all sides – in the letter ches – signifies: there is no place to get out of this "sin crouching at the door." The opening at the top – in the letter hei – signifies: he is indeed in a state of "sin crouching at the door," but he has an opening above – to get out of his state and do teshuvah.8
And although it is a small opening, our Sages nevertheless say: "פתחו לי כחודו של מחט" ("Open for Me an opening like the eye of a needle") – and through this – "ואני אפתח לכם כפתחו של אולם" ("and I will open for you like the opening of a hall"). For through a single thought of teshuvah one can become, in a single moment, from a complete rasha a complete tzaddik.9
7. The two differences depend on each other. When one is batel (self-effacing), then even if one has, G‑d forbid, sinned, one thinks about teshuvah; but when one is in a state of self-importance and haughtiness, one does not think about teshuvah.
When he is batel, he does not seek to justify himself; consequently he makes a true accounting, and when he sees that his conduct is not good, he does teshuvah. By contrast, out of thinking highly of himself, he finds calculations to justify all his behavior.10
8. Even more: not only after he has done something that is not good does he find an excuse for it, because he wants to remain in the right in his own eyes; but even at the very outset, when it comes to fulfilling a mitzvah for which he has to bend himself, out of his self-importance he finds calculations and reasons why he should not have to fulfill it.
Since tzedakah is the sum total of all the mitzvos,11 we will understand this matter in the mitzvah of tzedakah, and from it in all the mitzvos.
When he sees a poor man, he argues the argument that Turnus Rufus put to Rabbi Akiva:12 "אם אלקיכם אוהב עניים הוא, מדוע אינו מפרנסם?" ("If your G‑d loves the poor, why does He not support them?"). That is, out of his self-importance he reckons to himself that what he possesses is his because he deserves it – on the contrary, he deserves more – so how can he give any of it away? Self-importance does not tolerate the existence of another; it sits very comfortably with him that the other person is not his equal, and so it is self-evident to him that the reason the other is poor is because the other does not deserve better. And so, he thinks to himself, since G‑d wants – as justice would have it – that the other should be poor, why should he give to him?
By contrast, when he is batel:
a) He makes an accounting with himself and judges himself as to whether he is really better than the other, and this accounting brings him to give tzedakah, as it is written, "משפט וצדקה ביעקב אתה עשית" ("Justice and righteousness You have done in Yaakov") – the judgment he passes on himself brings him to tzedakah.
b) He understands that even if what the other lacks is due to a punishment, Heaven forbid – then the fact that he himself does have, despite his own state and standing not being good, compels him to say that we are like children to G‑d; and when a king punishes his own child and a friend of the king does the child a kindness, the king himself is very pleased with it – as was Rabbi Akiva's answer.
And as it is with the mitzvah of tzedakah, so it is with all the mitzvos.
9. Besides the fact that out of self-importance he looks for a justification for everything, claiming that he conducts himself as he should, there is even more: even when he can in no way find any excuse and must admit that he does not conduct himself as he should, he nevertheless finds various causes that brought him to it, and so he still remains in the right in his own eyes.
He argues various arguments. About one thing he argues that it is because of the yetzer hara, of which it is said "יצרו בוער כאש" ("his inclination burns like fire") – his evil inclination burns like fire. The Gemara itself says13 that G‑d regrets having created the yetzer hara – so how can one demand of him why he did not overcome it? About another thing he argues that "מקומו גרם לו לחטוא" ("his place caused him to sin") – his surroundings bring him to sin, and so on.
All the considerations mentioned in Tanya14 for judging another person favorably – he applies to himself. And he thinks to himself that given the circumstances in which he finds himself, it is still quite nice that he is as he is; someone else in his place would have been who knows what.
Even more: even when he knows that his conduct is not good, and he also has no causes on which to hang his conduct, nevertheless – "על כל פשעים תכסה אהבה" ("love covers all transgressions").15 The precise meaning of the word pesha'im is: "פשעים אלו המרדים" ("pesha'im are rebellions")16 (acts of defiance). He has no defense, and he himself knows that he is a rebel; nevertheless – love covers. He cannot in any way nullify it, even with false arguments, so he covers it with self-love – his love for himself.
10. And this is the difference between chametz and matzah:
Chametz is self-exaltation. Chametz has a ches, which is open at the bottom – "sin crouches at the door" – and "סתום מכל צד" ("closed on every side"): he has no opening through which to do teshuvah, because out of haughtiness: a) he justifies his conduct – it is perfectly fine; b) he finds causes and excuses for his behavior; c) "love covers all transgressions." The common denominator – he does not do teshuvah.
Matzah is bittul. Matzah has a hei, "פתוח למעלה" ("open above") – it is open at the top – because out of bittul: a) he does not justify his behavior; b) he has no excuses; c) and when he perceives the poor state in which he finds himself, he is broken by it.
Brokenness is, as the Rebbe Maharash said: a Jewish sigh is teshuvah ila'ah (the higher teshuvah); and so in one moment (sha'ah), with one turn (sha'ah in the sense of turning), he becomes a complete tzaddik.
11. With this we will understand why in the Yerushalmi17 the derivation of the thirty-nine melachos is learned from the words "אלה הדברים" ("These are the things"): it expounds the hei of eileh as though it were a ches – and then the word eileh amounts to thirty-nine.
At first glance this is difficult. True, letters from the same place of articulation interchange; but how can one expound a hei as a ches in a matter of numerical value?
But the point is this: the thirty-nine melachos of the world, by virtue of their creation and coming into being, are a matter of ches, as explained above. But through the service of "these are the things" – the labors of the Mishkan – "ששת ימים תעשה מלאכה" ("Six days work shall be done") (in a passive manner18) – one makes of them a hei. That is why in the verse that speaks of the service of "these are the things" – the thirty-nine melachos as they were in the Mishkan – it says eileh with a hei, because through our service one makes them into a hei.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei, 5702)
12. In general, all the Rebbeim, the Nesi'im (leaders) of Israel, up to and including my father-in-law, the Rebbe, are one thing, and each one of them did all things. This is also understood from the expression "ממלא מקום אבותיו" ("he fills the place of his fathers") – that he fills the place in all its details.
Nevertheless, each Rebbe had his own particular matter in which he was immersed, and through that matter he accomplished the other matters as well.
As is explained in Iggeres HaKodesh19 regarding the saying of our Sages,20 "אבוך במאי זהיר טפי" ("In what was your father most careful?"): although he fulfilled all the mitzvos, he nevertheless had a special matter, and that matter was the gate [OCR unclear – the text breaks off here; the rest of this section, sections 13 and 14, the opening of section 15, and footnotes 21–23 are missing or unreadable in the source]
[OCR unclear] … the Rebbe answered: In the Shulchan Aruch there are four parts – Orach Chaim, Yoreh De'ah, Even HaEzer, and Choshen Mishpat, which is the last part. The laws concerning the matters of "מעלין וכו'" ("raising up, etc.") are in Choshen Mishpat, and within Choshen Mishpat itself – in the very last simanim.
The order in which one must learn, according to the above, is: all the simanim of Orach Chaim, Yoreh De'ah, Even HaEzer, and "רובו ככולו" ("most of it, which is like the whole") of Choshen Mishpat, up to the few simanim at the end – and only then does one learn whether one raises up or, G‑d forbid, the opposite.
16. The inner meaning of this:
When one does a Jew a favor, there is no doubt that one is doing a mitzvah. But when one does a Jew something that is not good and claims that it is according to Torah – firstly, it may be that one is mistaken in the law; further, it may be that one is doing it because of a personal motive; and moreover, it may be that one is beating the other not because the Shulchan Aruch says so, but because one has a pleasure in beating.*
We find that a judge [must] be specifically a man of kindness.24 [He must be able to] find merit [for the other], and even when he [OCR unclear] … [a punishment] of the kingdom, and sometimes only [OCR unclear] … even then he himself [cannot carry out] the verdict in practice [OCR unclear], although it is according to the Shulchan Aruch, because he cannot bear the other's pain; and in practice an agent of the court carries it out. Unless it is a complete tzaddik such as Shmuel the Prophet, who had no ego of his own and whose entire being was to fulfill the Supreme Will – he himself killed Agag.
17. Chassidim, after all, want to go in the ways of the Rebbe. One must therefore know that although one must indeed guard oneself from one who stands on a lower level, lest he drag one down, G‑d forbid, nevertheless one must not push him away, but rather raise him up and do him a favor, even in material matters; and through this, a favor in spiritual matters comes later as well.
And then, it seems to me,25 according to "מאיר עיני שניהם הוי'" ("G‑d enlightens the eyes of them both"), he too is helped from Above to go on the straight path, and he is granted with a generous hand everything he needs, for himself and his household. He is granted from the Supernal kindness, which is without limit, and he is also given a vessel – as Chassidus interprets "והוא יכלכלך" ("and He will sustain you"): to give also the vessel into which the blessing can be drawn down.
(From the sichos of Yud Shevat, 5717)
18. Among the takanos (enactments) of the Rebbe whose hilula it is, there is the takanah that every day one should learn the portion of Chumash with Rashi – from the Sidrah of the week – that belongs to that particular day.
In this connection the Rebbe repeated the saying of the Alter Rebbe that one must "live with the times," which means that from the portion one learns each day, one must draw lessons that are relevant to that day.
19. The portion that belongs to today, the day of the hilula (from Sheni to Shlishi in Sidrah Beshalach), speaks about the situation of the Jews shortly before the splitting of the Sea.
The splitting of the Sea was one of the greatest miracles, as our Sages express it:26 "קשה כקריעת ים סוף" ("as difficult as the splitting of the Sea"). The splitting of the Sea is a preparation for the Giving of the Torah and also for the future Redemption.
How did they come to the splitting of the Sea?
It is related in the portion of Shlishi, which is learned tomorrow, after the hilula: there was a Jew, Nachshon ben Aminadav, who gave himself over with self-sacrifice and jumped into the sea, and through this he effected a drawing-down in all the Jews and brought down the miracle of the splitting of the Sea here below.
20. Nachshon ben Aminadav's jumping into the sea was, at that time and in that situation, something that was not entirely in order. For the opinion is known that the Jews before the Giving of the Torah had the status of Bnei Noach, and there is a dispute among the Rishonim and Acharonim whether a Ben Noach is obligated to give up his life (mesirus nefesh).
If one assumes that Bnei Noach are not obligated to give up their lives, then they are forbidden to do so, for they are commanded against bloodshed, even of themselves, as it is written, "אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש" ("But your blood of your lives I will require"). It follows that Nachshon was not permitted to give up his life.
Even according to the opinions that the Jews before the Giving of the Torah did not conduct themselves as Bnei Noach, that is only for stringency, not for leniency; so they were not permitted to give up their lives.
But Nachshon knew that when G‑d took the Jews out of Egypt, He said: "בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלקים על ההר הזה" ("When you take the people out of Egypt, you shall serve G‑d upon this mountain") – meaning that from Egypt one must go to Mount Sinai to receive the Torah. Therefore it did not concern him what lay in the middle of the way. He knows that one must go to Mount Sinai. If there is a sea in the middle, it has nothing to do with him; he must jump into the sea and continue onward until he reaches the Giving of the Torah.
21. As is related in the Midrash (Pirka deRabbeinu HaKadosh) on today's portion, which belongs to the day of the hilula, there were then four factions among the Jews. One faction held "ניתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה" ("Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt"). A second faction held that they should wage war against the Egyptians. A third faction argued that they should flee into the desert. Only one faction held that one may, or must, go into the sea.
So in truth, by the reckoning of "אחרי רבים להטות" ("follow the majority"), Nachshon could, even according to holy intellect, have doubted whether one may go into the sea.
But Nachshon did not want to enter into any debate. He knew that G‑d had said that one must go to Mount Sinai to receive the Torah. So Nachshon argued: to reach this goal, returning to Egypt is no way, nor is waging war with Egypt or going into the desert. For this there is only one way, and that is – going into the sea. Therefore one must jump into the sea, and through this one comes a step closer to Mount Sinai.
22. The situation of the Jews at the splitting of the Sea is a lesson for all generations, and likewise for the service of the Rebbe whose hilula it is, who himself worked in holy service with self-sacrifice and also transmitted this to those who go in his ways.
Right at the beginning of his leadership he began his holy work with self-sacrifice. That was the time in Russia when the Yevsektsia were raging, and to take upon oneself then a leadership devoted to spreading Torah and mitzvos and the inner dimension of the Torah was something contrary to the order of the state, contrary to nature, and it required actual self-sacrifice of soul and body.
And this self-sacrifice he also demanded of those who went along with him and worked with him.
Although in the Shulchan Aruch one does not find a law that one should demand self-sacrifice of another – regarding all the mitzvos we find that one must demand them of the other, which is included in the mitzvah of "הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך" ("You shall surely rebuke your fellow"), but regarding demanding self-sacrifice, one does not find this –
when is this said? When one does not feel that one has a mission from Above. It is different, however, when it is in the manner of "שכינה מדברת מתוך גרונו" ("the Shechinah speaks from his throat").
23. The Rebbe discusses in a maamar the difference between the self-sacrifice of Rabbi Akiva and the self-sacrifice of Avraham Avinu. Rabbi Akiva strove for it and sought out self-sacrifice, as he said: "מתי תבא לידי ואקיימנה" ("When will it come to my hand that I may fulfill it?").
With Avraham Avinu, however, self-sacrifice was not a service in its own right. His matter was "ויקרא שם בשם הוי' א-ל עולם" ("And he called there in the name of G‑d, the G‑d of the world"); "אל תקרי ויקרא אלא ויקריא" ("do not read 'he called' but 'he caused to call'") – he made others call out, so that all should call out not "the G‑d of the world" – meaning that G‑dliness and the world are connected but still two things – but rather "G‑d-world," which is one thing: "אין עוד מלבדו" ("there is nothing else besides Him").
That was Avraham Avinu's service. He did not seek self-sacrifice; but if his service required self-sacrifice, he was ready for it. When he was thrown into the fiery furnace – that was no obstacle, as long as he could carry out his service of "And he called there in the name of G‑d, the G‑d of the world."
And in the same way was the conduct of the one whose hilula it is. He did not chase after self-sacrifice; that was not his matter. He chased after "And he called there in the name of G‑d, the G‑d of the world" – spreading Torah and mitzvos together with the inner dimension of the Torah, with its customs and directives. That was his matter, and for its sake he did not stop before anything and did his work with self-sacrifice in the fullest sense.
Consequently he did not enter into investigations and debates as to whether, according to law, one must give up one's life in such a case or not; for he is not occupied with the matter of self-sacrifice – he is occupied with spreading and strengthening Judaism, and about other things he does not think. Nothing stops him from his work.
And therefore he is also not affected by the various factions that exist among Jews. None of these arguments concern him. He knows only one thing: that one must go ever closer to Mount Sinai. If there is a sea in the middle – he jumps into the sea. As for what will be later – that is G‑d's business; it does not concern him. He must do his part: go ever closer to Mount Sinai.
24. And this is the lesson that the one whose hilula it is transmitted to us, to all who must prepare themselves for the future Redemption:
Our work is to fulfill: "אני נבראתי לשמש את קוני" ("I was created to serve my Maker").27 Our work is – "אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה" ("to love the creatures and bring them close to Torah").
That is our matter, and nothing else concerns us at all.
As for the fact that there are various factions with differing and even strange opinions – this one shouts, "Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt," that one shouts that one must wage war, another shouts that one must flee into the desert – since this is not the way to come closer to receiving the Torah, it is not our way.
Our matter is to go to receive the Torah. "נותן התורה" ("Giver of the Torah") is, after all, in the present tense. And this we will do without calculations. If there is a sea in the middle – so what? We will go into the sea. If there is a mountain in the middle, we will bore through the mountain. We are going to receive the Torah, to unite with G‑d.
And when one goes to receive the Torah without calculations, then "ה' ילחם לכם ואתם תחרישון" ("G‑d will fight for you, and you shall be silent").
25. And just as it is said of Nachshon that he merited to be the first of the Nesi'im to bring his offering and inaugurate the Mishkan, so that there should be "ושכנתי בתוכם" ("and I will dwell among them"), so too every Jew must regard himself as a Nachshon.
And then it will be, as it says in Tikkunei Zohar, that when there will be found one Jew who is as he should be (there the expression is "tzaddik," and after all, "ועמך כולם צדיקים" – "and Your people are all tzaddikim"), he will bring Moshiach, and will receive the inner dimension of the Torah that Moshiach will reveal.
And through this we will come to "אז ישיר" ("Then [Moshe] will sing") – "מכאן רמז לתחיית המתים מן התורה" ("from here there is an allusion in the Torah to the Resurrection of the Dead") – that there will be "הקיצו ורננו שוכני עפר" ("Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust"), and he among them: the Rebbe whose hilula it is will lead us to greet Moshiach, with kindness and mercy.
(From the sichos of Yud Shevat, 5717)
26. At his bris, the Rebbe cried. As is customary with children, his grandfather, the Rebbe Maharash, said: "Why are you crying? When you grow up, you will be … and you will say Chassidus in clear language." That is how it is recorded in the Rebbe's notes of the maamar, with an empty space after the word "be." From Chassidim I have heard that he said, "you will be a Rebbe." This explains why there is an empty space in the Rebbe's notes.
27. When the Rebbe was a child, in the year 5644, his father, the Rebbe (Rashab) of blessed memory, lived in an apartment of two rooms. In one room was the bedroom, and in the second room he sat together with the Gaon and Chassid Rabbi Yaakov Mordechai Bezpalov and learned; the Rebbe's little bed was also there. The Rebbe was a very beautiful child; his face shone. Once, in the middle of learning, late at night, Rabbi Yaakov Mordechai saw the Rebbe sleeping, and he began to speak with the Rebbe [Rashab] of blessed memory about how the appearance and radiance of the face reflect purity of thought, etc. The Rebbe [Rashab] felt a strong desire to kiss the Rebbe. The thought passed through his mind that in the Beis HaMikdash, besides sacrifices, people would also bring silver, gold, and so on for the upkeep of the Temple. He decided to exchange the kiss for Chassidus, and then wrote the Chassidic maamar beginning "מה רבו מעשיך" ("How great are Your works"). In the year 5652 he gave the manuscript to the Rebbe as a gift, saying: "This is a Chassidic kiss. In time I will tell you about it." In 5656 he told him the whole story.
28. In the year 5657 the Rebbe (Rashab) of blessed memory was very ill and traveled to Moscow for treatment. The professors then told him that he had altogether a few months to live. When the Rebbe of blessed memory heard this, he decided to travel to Eretz Yisrael. [OCR unclear – the source text breaks off here; the rest of this sicha and its closing line are missing]
Notes
1) Michah 7:15.
2) See above, p. 118.
3) Shabbos 31a. Tanya, ch. 32.
4) See Kuntres HaTefillah, ch. 8; Toras Shalom, p. 10.
5) Yalkut Shimoni, Nach, remez 550.
6) Orach Chaim, siman 475.
7) Orach Chaim, siman 474.
8) See Menachos 29b.
9) See Kiddushin 49b.
10) On all of this, see Kuntres U'Maayan, maamar 15–16; and the maamar beginning "Lech Lecha," 5702.
11) Bava Basra 9a; Yerushalmi Pe'ah 1:1. And see Tanya, ch. 37.
12) Bava Basra 10a.
13) Sukkah 52b.
14) Ch. 30.
15) Mishlei 10:12.
16) Yoma 36b.
17) Shabbos 7:2.
18) See further, p. 187.
19) Siman 7.
20) Shabbos 118b.
*) See Derech [OCR unclear] … Esh, section 2.
24) Rambam, Hilchos Sanhedrin 2:3: [OCR unclear] … "One does not appoint to any Sanhedrin …"
25) Temurah 16a.
26) Sotah 2a.
27) Kiddushin 82a.
Key Lesson
Just as the Jews in Egypt and Nachshon at the Sea, we must go forward with firmness and self-sacrifice toward the goal of Torah – loving every Jew and bringing him close to Torah – without being intimidated by opposition or distracted by competing opinions. And like the open hei of matzah, true self-nullification keeps the door to teshuvah open, while self-importance justifies everything and shuts it.