AN UNFORSAKEN INHERITANCE

From the Talks of
The Lubavitcher Rebbe
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson

1. Inheriting the Torah

On several previous occasions the reading of Parshas (Vʼzos Ha)Brachah on Simchas Torah has been discussed:¹ although the commentaries offer a number of reasons why this parshah is read on the final day of the festival, it is reasonable to say that — beyond those reasons, and as with virtually all of the portions read on the festivals — this parshah too contains the theme of the festival itself.

Among the verses in the parshah that speak openly about the subject of Torah — the theme of this particular festival — is the verse² “The Torah that Moshe commanded us is a heritage (morashah) of the congregation of Yaakov.”

In his commentary on the verse — after emphasizing the words “The Torah that Moshe commanded us” are (not a matter in its own right, but rather) an introduction to the second part of the verse, “(the Torah that Moshe commanded us) is a heritage for the congregation of Yaakov”⁴ — Rashi explains that the content of morashah, “the heritage of the congregation of Yaakov,” is achaznuha v’lo naazvenah (“we have taken hold of it and will not forsake it”).

The commentaries⁵ note that this comment of Rashi follows from his comment on the preceding verse, “Indeed, You showed love for nations... bearing Your utterances,” which Rashi explains (in his second interpretation):⁶

2. A Bond Never Severed

We can suggest that Rashi preempts this question through the precision of his wording — achaznuha. For on the face of it, how does the language of achizah — taking hold — suit the Torah? In the surrounding verses, and particularly regarding the mitzvah of Hakhel, the terms employed are those of hearing, study, and observance, and the like.⁹

Rather, the word achaznuha here stems not from achizah — a holding-on, the active keeping of one’s grip — but from achuzah: a holding one possesses, an inheritance.¹⁰ By it, Rashi means to call to mind the law of achuzah taught earlier, in Parshas Behar¹¹ — that when a person sells his ancestral {hereditary} field, it reverts to its owner in the Jubilee year: “in this Jubilee year you shall return, each man to his holding (achuzaso)”¹² — for since it is his achuzah, it remains bound to him forever.¹³

And so it is in our case: that Jews remain bound to the Torah always, in whatever situation they may find themselves — even when they are given over into the hands of the nations of the world — stems from the Torah’s being “the heritage of the congregation of Yaakov”: the Torah is an inheritance and ancestral holding (yerushah v’achuzah).

[Based on this we can appreciate why Rashi is not content with the word achaznuha alone but adds — including the negation¹⁴ — “v’lo naazvenah,” and will not forsake it. For even once Rashi has likened “the heritage of the congregation of Yaakov” to a field that is an achuzah, it must still be made clear that when “their righteous and good ones” declare “The Torah that Moshe commanded us...” they do not mean (only) in the same way as a field that is an achuzah – which can in practice leave the owner’s possession for a span of time – but something more: that with them, the achaznuha is in a manner of “v’lo naazvenah,” never to be forsaken.]

With this, a further question in the idea of “the heritage of the congregation of Yaakov” is resolved. Since the Torah comes to Jews by way of inheritance – that is, from father to son¹⁵ – it would seem to follow that if the father who bequeaths it is not a Torah scholar (and all the more so if, G-d forbid, he does not observe the Torah and its mitzvos), and there is no Torah by him, G-d forbid — the Torah could then not reach the son.¹⁶

Rashi forestalls this by showing that the Torah is comparable to a field that is an achuzah: since it is “his achuzah,” the bond between the field and its owner is never severed, even when he (wishes to, and) sells the field.

And so too here {with regards to Torah}: even when a person conducts himself in such a manner that the Torah bears no apparent connection to him – the Torah remains his (inheritance and ancestral holding), under all circumstances.¹⁷

3. Delving Deeper into Rashi

It has been noted many times — in the words of the Shelah¹⁸ — that Rashi’s commentary on the Torah contains “wondrous concepts.” In our case:

As mentioned earlier (at the opening of the sicha), Parshas V’zos HaBrachah contains a theme of the festival – of Simchas Torah: right at the start of the parshah there are several verses about the subject of Torah — “G-d came from Sinai...,”¹⁹ “Indeed, You showed love for nations,” “The Torah that Moshe commanded us....” Yet on the face of it these verses would seem to belong not to Simchas Torah — “the completion (conclusion) of the Torah”²⁰ — but to Shavuos, the time of Matan Torah.²¹

But in light of Rashi’s emphasis — that the import of “the heritage of the congregation of Yaakov” is achaznuha (as with a field that is an achuzah) — the connection of this verse specifically to Simchas Torah becomes clear. For although Matan Torah belongs to Shavuos, the idea of “the heritage of the congregation of Yaakov” — that the Torah is an inheritance and ancestral holding of the Jewish people — is connected specifically to Simchas Torah.

4. The Joy of the Second Tablets

This will be understood by first setting out what is explained in several places.²² The reason Simchas Torah was established on the festival of Shemini Atzeres, and not on Shavuos — the time of the Matan Torah — is that the joy of Simchas Torah is connected to the giving of the second tablets on Yom Kippur²³ (for Shemini Atzeres comes in continuation of, and following, Yom Kippur). Since the second tablets were given as a result of the teshuvah of the Jewish people, it is specifically this giving that arouses in Jews the greatest joy.

Yet this requires explanation: although in several respects Shemini Atzeres is a festival in its own right,²⁴ the Torah nonetheless calls it “the eighth day” — indicating that the festival of Shemini Atzeres is (also) a continuation of the preceding seven days of Sukkos.²⁵

From this it follows that the joy of Shemini Atzeres too — for all its connection to the giving of the second tablets on Yom Kippur — bears a connection, and moreover is a continuation, of the joy of the seven days of Sukkos.

And so we must understand: what is the connection between the joy of Sukkos and the joy over the giving of the second tablets?²⁶

5. Three Stages of the Harvest

There is a potential explanation {for why Sukkos, particularly the end of Sukkos, is when we celebrate the second tablets}:

As to why the joy of Sukkos is greater than that of the other festivals — for regarding Sukkos the Torah states the command to rejoice three times, whereas regarding Shavuos it does so only once, and regarding Pesach the theme of joy is not mentioned at all²⁷ — our Sages explain²⁸ that this is bound up with the differences between the festivals in the state of the standing crop:

Pesach falls in “the month of spring (aviv),”²⁹ when the crop has not yet (fully) ripened. There is therefore as yet no joy, for one cannot yet know with certainty whether the crop will turn out as it should.

Shavuos is “the Festival of the Harvest (Chag HaKatzir)”³⁰ — the time when the crop is already finished and cut — and so the joy now begins; but it is still not joy in its fullness, since the crop is still in the field³¹ and has not been gathered in (definitely not most of it) in a way that one could derive benefit from it.

Sukkos is “the Festival of Ingathering (Chag HaAsif)... when you gather in your work from the field”³² — when one gathers the crops in from the field and brings them into the granaries and homes; and since the produce of the land is now ready and at hand to be enjoyed, this calls forth joy in its fullness, hence the three mentions of joy.

Now, the Torah is eternal³³ — {applicable} in every place and at every time — and is bound up with each and every Jew. It follows that the theme of the joy of the three festivals (in connection with the crop of the field) is not confined to the time when Jews dwelled on their land, when their (primary) physical sustenance was tied to these three seasons.

We must therefore say that when the Torah links the joy of the three festivals to the produce of the land, it means³⁴ not only produce in the physical sense, but also — and indeed primarily³⁵ — the idea of produce as it exists spiritually: Torah and mitzvos³⁶ (as is known, the Torah is called “produce” (tevuah)³⁷ and “bread” (lechem)³⁸, and “fruits” refers to mitzvos³⁹) – a “produce” that pertains to every Jew. And the three seasons of “the month of spring,” “the Festival of the Harvest,” and “the Festival of Ingathering” are three stages in the growth of that spiritual “produce” in the life of the Jewish people. [Only afterward, when the Jewish people are on their land, does this also “devolve” into the physical realm, so that their joy comes to be bound up with the physical crop as well.]

6. Faith, Acceptance, and Action

An explanation {of how the festivals correspond to the seasons in a spiritual manner} is as follows:

Chag HaMatzos (Pesach) — the time of the Exodus from Egypt — marks the beginning and foundation of the service of G-d. At the Exodus, upon seeing all the miracles and so forth, there was awakened in the Jewish people the concept of faith (emunah) — “And the Jews saw... and they believed in G-d...”⁴⁰ — and faith is the foundation of the service of G-d. Yet on the other hand this is only the foundation, and not the service of G-d itself, mitzvos in practice: there is as yet no finished “produce” (much as, in the plain chronological order, the Exodus came first, before the Torah and mitzvos were given to the Jewish people).

[Moreover: faith alone can be {expressed} as in the well-known saying, “a thief, at the entrance of the tunnel, prays to G-d {meaning, as he is about to commit a burglary, he prays for success}” — for notwithstanding that he believes with perfect faith in the existence of the Creator, and knows that the success of his theft, too, depends on G-d’s will — which is precisely why “at the entrance of the tunnel, he prays to G-d” [for success] — his faith nonetheless does not move him to obey G-d and refrain from stealing. For faith does not necessarily have a deep, tangible effect upon the person.⁴¹]

Shavuos, the time of Matan Torah, is when G-d gave the Jewish people the Torah and mitzvos, which they took upon themselves with the declaration and in the manner of na’aseh v’nishma (“we will do and we will hear”) — comparable to the reaping of the crop, where the crop is already finished and is reaped by a person. Even so, this is still only an acceptance in thought and speech, and the dimension of deed⁴² is still lacking (the gathering of the fruits into a person’s own domain) — the drawing down into actual daily life.

This, then, is the accomplishment of Sukkos: as one passes through the span of time (and the service of G-d within it) between Shavuos and Sukkos, and over the course of that time, amid the various circumstances that arise in daily life, Jews conduct themselves in accordance with the Torah and its mitzvos — through this the idea of “when you gather in your work (maasecha) from the field” is fulfilled: one has gathered in the (spiritual) produce into one’s own domain — one is now secured in the service of Torah and mitzvos (spiritual produce) in actual deed as well.

7. Engraved Beyond Uprooting

Here, however, a question would seem to arise. We find, in fact, that after the receiving of the Torah the Jewish people not only fell short in the proper observance of Torah and mitzvos, but more than that — they stumbled in the sin of the Golden Calf, which was the most severe of sins (the very antithesis of the faith (of Pesach, and) in “I am the L-rd, your G-d” of Shavuos). How, then, can it be said that in the span between Matan Torah and Sukkos the concept of “the ingathering of the crop” was accomplished?

The explanation is that, counterintuitively, this very fact proves the point: since, notwithstanding the magnitude of the descent brought about by the sin of the Golden Calf, the Jewish people were aroused to teshuvah to the point of bringing about “salachti kidvarecha” (“I have forgiven, as you have asked”)⁴⁴ — this itself is a proof that the matter of Torah and mitzvos had been “gathered in” among the Jewish people in a fixed and permanent manner, which nothing has the power to sever.

This can be explained as follows:

Concerning the superiority of the baal teshuvah over the tzaddik, the Rambam writes⁴⁵ that not only is the baal teshuvah “beloved... and desirable before the Creator, as if he had never sinned,” but, more than that:

His reward is great, for he has tasted the taste of sin and separated from it, and conquered his inclination.

He then continues:

The Sages said: “In the place where baalei teshuvah stand, the complete tzadikim cannot stand” — that is, their level is greater than that of those who never sinned,⁴⁶ for they subdue their inclination more than tzadikim do.

From the Rambam’s addition — “that is, their level is greater than that of those who never sinned” (and especially since he shifts from his earlier wording, “his reward is great”) it is readily understood that the superiority of the baal teshuvah, by virtue of his having “tasted the taste of sin and separated from it and conquered his inclination,” is not only with respect to (receiving) reward – that is, that since it comes with greater exertion and subduing of the inclination, a greater reward is due him, as our Sages said, “according to the effort is the reward” (l’fum tzaara agra)⁴⁷ – but rather that this is a higher quality in the Jew himself and in the service of G-d.⁴⁸

One of the explanations of this is: with one who has not “tasted the taste of sin,” one cannot be completely certain that his level of righteousness will endure in all situations. It may be that his entire righteousness is owing to his not having been tested with other, or greater, trials. But were one to imagine that, for whatever reason, he came to be in a different situation — one with trials to which he is unaccustomed — would he be able to withstand those trials as well? This cannot be known.⁴⁹

Specifically a baal teshuvah, who has “tasted the taste of sin and separated from it” — since he has already passed through the opposite and yet “separated from it and conquered his inclination” — is thereby given the assurance that he will remain righteous;⁵⁰ and in this consists the superiority of the baal teshuvah.

In other words: it is specifically in the service of teshuvah that it is expressed how the service of G-d is engraved in the very being of a Jew, in such a way that it cannot be uprooted from him. This is why, even after he has committed a sin – which tears him away, G-d forbid, from G-d – he has no rest until he returns to His service. And this stems from the fact that in the innermost part of his soul “even at the time of the sin it remained faithful to Him,”⁵¹ and this does not let him rest until he does teshuvah.⁵²

And this is why the completion and culmination of Chag HaAsif – Sukkos – (the joy of Shemini Atzeres and Simchas Torah) was established in connection with the giving of the second tablets, which were given in connection with the teshuvah of the Jewish people – for it is specifically through teshuvah that the true “gathering {collection}” comes about,⁵³ as the service of G-d becomes engraved in the very being of the Jew.

8. Wholly One with the Torah

In light of all the above, we can understand the connection of the verse “The Torah that Moshe commanded us is a heritage of the congregation of Yaakov” to Simchas Torah specifically:

That the Torah is a “heritage” for the Jewish people shows (as Rashi indicates — see seif 2 above) that Jews remain bound to the Torah in all manner of circumstances, like a hereditary field: even when the field leaves the owner’s possession, this is only temporary, and in the end it returns (in the Jubilee).

And this inheritance-aspect of the Torah is expressed in the service of teshuvah, which shows how the Torah becomes bound up with the very being of a Jew — to the point that one cannot become separated from the Torah. Even when a person has torn himself away, G-d forbid, from G-d, this is only temporary; in the end he will surely return to his true essence — the service of G-d.

And this is why the theme of “the heritage of the congregation of Yaakov” is bound up (not with Shavuos, the time of Matan Torah, but rather) specifically with Simchas Torah, which was established upon the giving of the second tablets — the tablets given through the teshuvah of the Jewish people.

This is also its connection to the theme of “the completion (conclusion) of the Torah” (which is the plain reason for the joy of Simchas Torah): for the “completion” and culmination of Torah study is bound up with the Torah’s becoming entirely one (kula chad) with the Jew.

And this finds expression specifically in the service of teshuvah, which brings out how the Torah is engraved in the very being of a Jew — so that in all circumstances the bond cannot be nullified.⁵⁴ As in the well-known expression: Yisrael, Oraisa, v’Kudsha Brich Hu – kula chad (the Jewish people, the Torah, and G-d, are all one).⁵⁵

From sichos of Simchas Torah 5737 [1976] and Simchas Beis HaShoeivah 5720 [1959]