However, one thing puzzled her. While she could see the relevance of these concepts and these arguments to politicians, activists or journalists in Israel, the Rebbe was, at the time, speaking to the Crown Heights community of Chabad chassidim, with the local bochurim and yungerleit. What impact could they have on the Israeli political landscape, that would necessitate them being addressed about these matters?
When she was asked (by Rabbi Chodakov?) about her impressions of the farbrengen, she shared – along with her overall positive impressions – her above question.
[Now, I would like to digress for a moment, but I want to preface with another story: In Eretz Yisroel, there is a chassidisher Rebbe known as the Amshinover Rebbe. He was always very closely connected with the Rebbe (the connection began with his predecessors, his grandfather, who was Rebbe before him, as well as his father), behaving, in many ways, as a chosid of the Rebbe, and frequently sending chassidim to the Rebbe with their questions.
This continued even after chof zayin adar, and, then, after gimmel Tamuz. Once a bochur came to him with a question about which yeshiva to continue learning in. The Amshinover Rebbe, after considering the options, replied (this was after gimmel tamuz): “From the options that are available to you, this is what seems preferable to me (singling out one of the options). However, this is my opinion, which is daas tachton. If you want to know the true answer to your question, daas elyon, then you need to write to the Lubavitcher Rebbe and open a volume of his igros”.
The bochur did as he was instructed, and received the same answer as the Amshinover had given him! The point is, to some degree, we always have a choice of choosing a daas tachton perspective of a situation, or trying to figure out – to the best of our ability – what the daas elyon way of looking at it would be, and try to identify with that.
The same applies, I think, in the above instance. The daas tachton approach to answering her question would probably be: ‘Well, the fact that someone as influential as Geulah Cohen was there was enough of a reason for the Rebbe to address subjects that he wanted her to hear. This was, after all, for the greater benefit of klal Yisroel’. However, the daas elyon perspective would be that it is inconceivable that the Rebbe farbrengened with a large number of chassidim about matters that are not directly relevant to them themselves (as was, in fact, apparent in the Rebbe’s response)].
Her question was conveyed to the Rebbe, and the Rebbe sent her the following response: “This is, indeed, dependent on those present by the farbrengen. If the bochurim will koch zich in (apply themselves to) learning, that will rectify the problems in Eretz Yisroel”.
Another version that I heard of the Rebbe’s response: “If the yungerleit here will work on themselves to not be so indulged in taavos heter (in permissible indulgences), this will affect the political landscape in Israel”. [I would assume that the story is printed somewhere, especially now, and that would be a way to verify the accurate details, but I have been unable to find it anywhere, so I am writing both versions that I heard].
It seems, at first glance, that both versions of the story convey the same general idea; - that our involvement in our spiritual avodas Hashem affects the world – and corrects its problems – no less (and perhaps more) than the activism of politicians and askonim. But, specifically, I think there is a fundamental difference between them.
In Chassidus, especially the maamorim connected with yud tes kislev and yud kislev, we learn about two manners of “pdiyah”, - of the nefesh Elokis being redeemed and liberated from the war being waged against it by the nefesh habehamis. There is a pdiyah in a way of milchomoh, through actively engaging with the enemy and struggling with him until he is subdued and defeated. The other way is pdiyah besholom. In that way, the person does not need to confront and deal with his negative inclinations. Rather, he connects with his neshomo on such a level that all else becomes insignificant.
[R’ Peretz Motchkin, the great chosid, said: “There is no difficulty or challenge imaginable, that one can’t become free of by ‘shtein a tefach hecher’” (bringing himself to stand on a higher plane). That is an example a podoh besholom, in which the person doesn’t deal with his specific challenge, but rather leaves it behind by bringing himself to a loftier level].
While there are many levels in each, the general examples of these two manners of liberation are davening versus learning Torah: When one davens, he is engaging his NHB. The objective of davening is to persuade and convince the NHB of the greatness of Hashem and the attractiveness of loving Him, fearing Him and serving Him. We speak about many things that are important in the mindset of the NHB (the creatures in the world and the way that they’re each and all sustained etc.).
In contrast, one who learns Torah is involved with Elokus, with understanding the infinite Wisdom of Hashem and imbuing his intellect with it. He does not focus on the world or any of the forces of impurity within it that he is seeking to affect. That all takes place automatically, passively, so for the one who is learning, it is a pdiyah besholom.
These are – seemingly – reflected in the two different versions of the above story (at least until I can verify the accurate version of the story, I know it as two versions): We know that גם אתה עולם נתן בלבו של) האדם), - every person is an olam koton, a microcosm of the world. The adversaries that are faced in the world at large represent and reflect that internal adversaries that are present within each of us.
In the avodah to forego indulgences, we are actively dealing with our adversary. True, we are engaging with the adversary that is within us, but that is merely a subtle form of the same adversary that manifests itself in a different form in the outside world. So when we struggle not to give into our physical desires (even in matters that are permissible), we are struggling actively against the opposing force (the desires of our guf and NHB).
If we are successful, what we have achieved is to not allow our NHB to gain control over our body and our being (by having it being governed by its taavos), but, rather, retaining the control, and governance, of our G-dly soul. In essence, what we achieved is to not give up any of our territories (which the guf, the עיר קטנה, is likened to) to any foreign forces, but to retain our own exclusive control over all of them. It follows that when we are successful within ourselves, we will see the same results in the outside world, of the territories of Eretz Yisroel remaining under Jewish control and governance. But the achievement was through directly confronting and engaging with the adversary (at some level).
In contrast, according to the other version these results are achieved through diligence in learning Torah. In that case, we are not involved with or engaging with the adversary at any level, not even in its subtle form the way it exists within our warring souls (of course, we still have to fight our own laziness and other interests in order to properly learn Torah, but that is not what the avodah itself consists of, but what we need to do to get there). That would be, therefore, an example of podoh besholom, of achieving the results automatically, in a peaceful manner.
This is also the difference between the 24th day of Kislev, this Sunday, and the 25th of Kislev, when Chanukah commences: The 24th of Kislev is day on which (according to many opinions) the Jews won the war against their enemy in the times of Chanukah. This is a day that reflects a victory that is achieved through a war against the adversary, it is a level of the neshomo in which we still face challenges and we need to deal with them. This is the idea contained in the number 24, because there are 24 letters in ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד, - a phrase which represents יחוד אתתאה, or an avodah in which we face the world and have to subjugate it.
The 25th of Kislev, when we begin the yom tov of Chanukah, is connected to the jar of oil. The pach hashemen, the jar of oil sealed by the Kohen godol, reflects the level of the neshomo (and of G-dliness) in which adversary has no place to begin with. True, that jar of oil needed to be found, and that level of the neshomo needs to be revealed, but once that happens we are not dealing with any adversary, because at that level there is nothing else, - ein od milvado! This is the idea contained in the number 25, because there are 25 letters in the possuk שמע ישראל ה' אלקינו ה' אחד, - a phrase which represents יחוד אעילאה, or an avodah in which the world is naught, and there is nothing besides Hashem.
In the maamorei chassidus of the recent yomei depagra (that we sure all spent much time studying), we learn in detail how each of these two approaches, each of these two types of liberation, has an advantage over the other one. Ideally, one should seek both advantages (beis sholom, the two types of peace).
Let us, then, grab hold of the lingering hisorerus from the recent yomim tovim and apply ourselves to the liberation of our nefesh hoElokis in both of the manners explained. And since we are each an olam koton, and our inner avodah is reflected in the outside world, this will surely bring to the immediate and ultimate collective podoh besholom nafshi with Moshiach NOW!
L’chaim! Let us dedicate ourselves to liberating our neshomo in both prescribed manners, through learning Torah, through avodas hatefilah and the other manners explained in the maamorim, and may the Eibishter bring about the immediate and ultimate podoh besholom nafshi, with the immediate hisgalus of Moshiach Tzidkeinu NOW!!!
Rabbi Akiva Wagner
לזכות ב"ש דבן מרים,'שיט" לאויוש מתוך בריאות הנכונה ס"וכט בטוב! ג"הנר והנ לזכות ת"הרה אהרן בן, חנה ק"ל רפושוט" ואויוש לזכות ח"הרה 'רמ" מהכהן בן, חוה ש"ל רפו ובריאות הנכונה ט" ואויוש
