Ki Teitzei: Building a New Home

The Yiddish term ufruf refers to the aliyah that a prospective groom (chasan) customarily receives on the Shabbos before his wedding.

The Shabbos on which the new month is blessed.

See the following sichah (p. 21) which encapsulates those explanations.

This maamar was later edited by the Rebbe and published in honor of the Rebbe’s golden wedding anniversary, 5739, and later included in the collection of maamarim, Toras Menachem, Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, Vol. 4, p. 235. It is customarily reviewed by chasanim at the reception (kabbalas panim) before their weddings.

Devarim 22:8.

See Toras Menachem, Vol. 12, p. 204.

Devarim 22:8.

The reason the verse begins, “When you build a home” – even though a person who purchases, or otherwise acquires, a home is also obligated to erect a railing – can be explained straightforwardly: It is most likely that a railing is necessary for a home that is newly built and the verse is describing the commonplace experience. This is a general principle regarding the interpretation of the Torah’s words even according to the straightforward understanding of the text. See Rashi, Shmos 21:28, 22:17, 21, 30; et al. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 6, p. 130ff.

The question in the main text is: Why does the verse use the phrase “a new house”? The word “new” seems to be superfluous and, furthermore, could lead to a misinterpretation – that the obligation to construct a railing applies only to a new home.

Sifri , commenting on the above verse.

The spelling of the Hebrew term translated as “when it becomes new” in Yalkut Shimoni differs slightly.

Sifri d’vei Rav on the Sifri. See Tzafnas Panei’ach, Rambam, Hilchos Berachos 11:2, Hilchos Terumah 4:2 (quoted in Tzafnas Panei’ach al HaTorah on the verse). Toldos Adam on the Sifri interprets the Sifri as teaching, “When the home is new to him and he enters it to dwell [in it].” This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

Aside from the question in the main text, there is an additional point. The interpretation cited in the Sifri is a minority opinion – that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi – and it is contested by the Sages. For this reason, it is not cited by Rambam* or in other sources (Sifri d’vei Rav, loc. cit.). See also Migdal Oz, Rambam, Hilchos Rotzei’ach 11:3.

Sifri d’vei Rav, loc. cit., explains that according to the Sages, the word “new” in the phrase, “new home,” is necessary to teach that any house that is “new” to the buyer requires a railing, even though he did not build it. Although the Sifri earlier derived this insight from the word “home,” which Sifri interprets as meaning, “any home,” it could be said that the intent is “any new home” (Sifri d’vei Rav in an earlier comment on the verse; Toldos Adam, loc. cit.). It is, however, difficult to interpret the wording of Sifri in this manner.

* Note the passage from Tzafnas Panei’ach cited in the previous footnote.

The intent of Tzafnas Panei’ach, loc. cit., which interprets the phrase, “when it becomes ‘new’ ” as meaning “when it is built,” requires analysis.

The understanding that the clause, “lest a person who falls…” is the reason for the command to build a railing is the straightforward interpretation of the verse. Note, however, sec. 6 in the main text (and footnote 53) which interpret the phrase according to halachah.

Shabbos 32a; quoted by Rashi on this verse.

Ibn Ezra (and other commentators similarly) state, “[The person] is referred to [by that term] because of his ultimate fate.… [In] an innumerable number of [instances], words [are used to] refer to the eventual state of the subject [in question].” Nevertheless, that explanation itself requires clarification: Why is the person described in terms of his ultimate fate?

(It appears that even Ibn Ezra himself was not entirely certain regarding this interpretation, as reflected by the continuation of his commentary, “It is not known if this is [Scripture’s] manner of wording or these are words of prophecy.”)

Bava Basra 25a-b.

Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 3. See also Rabboseinu Baalei HaTosafos (Hadar Zekeinim) and Chizkuni at the beginning of Parshas Bereishis.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 2, p. 561. Note Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. 1, ch. 51, et al.

However, it could be said that this is so in order to allow for free choice. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

Note the general principle (stated by Rashbam, Bava Basra 52b, et al.), that when the Talmud concludes its discussion of an argument by saying that the question has not been resolved, the law which was questioned is not nullified. To cite a somewhat similar concept: Beitzah 6a relates that a law stated by Rav was questioned by other Sages. Rav remained silent and did not reply to their question. Nevertheless, according to many authorities, he did not retract his opinion, and according to some, Rav’s ruling is accepted as law. See the footnote and the sources cited in Sefer HaMaamarim 5708, p. 102. There are other similar instances.

In previous generations, the term nistar, which refers to the hidden, mystical dimension of the Torah, was contrasted with nigleh, the Torah’s revealed largely legalistic dimension. The Rebbe, however, uses the term pnimiyus haTorah because the AriZal, the famed 16^th century Kabbalist, declared that “it is a mitzvah to reveal this wisdom” (Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 26) and from that time onward, the term nistar is not entirely appropriate.

The Alter Rebbe clarifies the difference between nigleh and pnimiyus haTorah through the following analogy (Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 3d ff.). Nigleh can be compared to bread and meat, while pnimiyus haTorah can be compared to salt. Bread and meat have substance and flavor of their own. Correspondingly, nigleh can be comprehended intellectually (it has substance) and therefore, generates satisfaction. By contrast, salt has neither substance nor flavor of its own; rather, it serves to add flavor to the other foods. Similarly, pnimiyus haTorah is transcendent in nature and can never be fully intellectually grasped. However, it adds flavor and understanding to the study of nigleh.

See Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, loc. cit., where the Alter Rebbe explains that the revealed, legalistic dimension of the Torah and pnimiyus haTorah are not separate and distinct disciplines, but interrelated like the body and the soul.

Nevertheless, Rashi, at times, quotes concepts like the above that involve deeper points of understanding in his commentary on the Torah, just as he brings many other interpretations that are not so straightforward. And, at times, he will bring two or more interpretations because each one has a particular difficulty. Similarly, there are other examples where he departs from his ordinary style of interpretation.

Vayikra 16:6.

Mishnah, Yoma 1:1 (referring to the above verse). See Yoma 13a; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 17, p. 172ff.

Shabbos 118b; explained in Likkutei Sichos, loc. cit., secs. 3-4.

Note that included in this week’s Torah reading is the verse (Devarim 22:13), “If a man takes a wife…,” cited by Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 1:1), as the prooftext for the mitzvah of consecration.

In his Sefer HaMitzvos (positive mitzvah 213), however, Rambam cites a different prooftext (Devarim 24:1), which is also included in this week’s Torah reading. See Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 552) which also cites another verse from this week’s Torah portion (Devarim 24:2) in connection with the mitzvah of kiddushin. Similarly, this Torah portion contains the verse (ibid. 24:5), “When a man will take a new wife…. He shall remain free [to be] in his home for one year.”

Note that the marriage of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, was on the thirteenth of Elul, the sixth day of the week of Parshas Ki Seitzei, 5657. As in 5738 (1978, the year the sichah was first published), it was the day associated with the sixth aliyah of that Torah reading, which contains the verse, “When a man will take a new wife….”

Kiddushin 29b. See the Alter Rebbe’s Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:1ff., and the sources cited there.

In connection with the concept of a railing being associated with a person’s transition into involvement with the day-to-day realities of material life, note Etz Chayim (shaar 42, ch. 14; Shaar HaMitzvos and Sefer HaLikkutim on the verse under discussion), which explains that the spiritual parallel to a railing is the separation between the world of Atzilus and the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah.

Berachos 35b. In that source, the Talmud continues, “And Torah, what will be with it?!”

See similar concepts in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 2, p. 385ff. Note Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 52a.

In that vein, Chassidus (Torah Or, p. 106a; Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim 1a; et al.) interprets the word chasan, “groom,” as associated with the phrase, chus darga, “descend a level.” See Yevamos 63a, which counsels, “Descend (nachis) a level and marry a wife.”

The appropriateness of this term can be appreciated based on the inner, mystical interpretation of the phrase, “lest a person who falls, fall from it” – that it refers to the sparks of holiness that fell to this material realm as a result of the shattering of the vessels of the world of Tohu* (see Etz Chayim and the other sources cited above). (See sec. 4 in the main text, which explains that the phrase, “when you build a new home” refers to man’s task of refining the world’s material substance as a whole.) If, through Divine Providence, a person encounters such sparks of holiness and he does not refine them and elevate them to their source, they will fall to even lower levels.

* The world of Tohu (“chaos”) refers to a realm of spiritual existence which preceded the spiritual gestalt that prevails at present, the world of Tikkun (“rectification”), but which was destroyed in the spiritual cataclysm referred to as sheviras hakeilim, “the shattering of the vessels.” This happened because, in the realm of Tohu, the lights (oros) and the keilim (vessels) were not adequately balanced. Since the lights were too powerful for the vessels, the keilim shattered and their remnants descended through the Spiritual Cosmos until they became enclothed in the material substance of our physical world. Thus, the Kabbalists speak of the 288 sparks of the realm of Tohu that fell and are to be refined by our Divine service.

See the maamar entitled Vayavo Amalek, 5688, the end of sec. 1.

Regarding all the above, see the extensive explanations in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 6, p. 22ff., and particularly, footnotes 73 and 79, (translated in Selections from Likkutei Sichos, Shmos, p. 61ff.) and Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 12, p. 74ff., and the sources mentioned there.

Derech Mitzvosecha, Shoresh Mitzvas HaTefilah, sec. 25ff. See Torah Or, p. 90b, et al. See footnote 38 below.

“Come into being as new entities” is being used as a translation of the phrase nishavah biderech hischadshus. The intent is that there is no logical way that such an entity could come into existence from the previous state of being.

This concept is often explained by drawing a contrast to another way of bringing a different entity into existence, one described as ilah ve’elul, usually translated as “a cause-and-effect progression.” One of the examples of a cause-and-effect progression is the manner in which feelings come into being from thought. It is natural, for example, that when one understands the positive value of a particular object or activity, he will desire it and feel positively about it. In such a relationship, a) there is a natural progression from the thought to the feeling, and b) when contemplating the thought, it is logical that such a feeling will arise and, conversely, when contemplating the feeling, one realizes that it was motivated by such a thought. Thus, the cause-and-effect are intrinsically related and the effect does not represent something inherently new.

By contrast, when something comes into being as a new entity, even though there is a source which brings it into being, it is not logical that it will come into being from that source, nor can one recognize the source by contemplating the entity that came into being from it. There is no obvious connection between the two. Furthermore, the emergence of the new entity from the source is not natural. On the contrary, a special activity is necessary for that new entity to emerge and for its existence to be maintained afterwards.

In that vein, there is no logical connection between the yesh of the material existence of this world and its spiritual source. Accordingly, as stated in Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, chs. 1-2, our world must continually be maintained by G‑d’s creative force.

Tzimtzum refers to the process of self-limitation and contraction within G‑d’s infinite light. Here, the main text is referring to the initial tzimtzum, which involved the utter withdrawal of Or Ein Sof and its absorption in G‑d’s Essence, its source.

See Sefer HaArachim-Chabad, Vol. 3, erech Or Ein Sof (1), sec. 10, and the sources cited there. As explained in that source, because this light came into being after the tzim­tzum, it now appears as though it had been projected into an external framework of existence where there is a concept of limitation. Thus, it takes on an identity as revealed light, which is a new development.

It is new both in relation to the tzim­tzum – because the tzimtzum is so absolute that there is no way one could conceive of light shining – and in relation to the original light – because that original light could not exist within a framework of limitation.

Meorei Or 1:32. See Sefer HaArachim-Chabad, Vol. 1, erech Adam Kadmon, sec. 3, and the beginning of sec. 6; note the sources cited there.

The wording in the main text referring to the emergence of Adam Kadmon as yesh mei’ayin must be understood in a relative sense. The term yesh typically denotes an entity with a consciousness of self and this term is entirely inappropriate regarding Adam Kadmon. Nevertheless, since Adam Kadmon reflects G‑d’s desire to bring into being all the varied levels of existence, its being introduces – in a very refined sense, at least – the concept of limitation and an existence that appears distinct from Him. As stated in other sources (Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 43d), Adam Kadmon is the source of the Ten Sefiros. As such, Adam Kadmon appears as something other than G‑d and therefore the term yesh is appropriate in this context (Sefer HaMaamarim 5686, p. 156, et al.).

See the different approaches to this concept explained in Sefer HaArachim-Chabad, Vol. 4, erech oros d’sefiros – peshitusam vetziyuram, sec. 3, and the sources mentioned there.

Often, the keilim of the world of Atzilus are described with the analogy of the limbs and organs of the body. On the one hand, these limbs and organs are totally given over to the soul to the extent that they do not feel themselves as independent entities but as extensions of the soul. On the other hand, they are tangible entities and do not cease to exist when, Heaven forbid, the soul is separated from them.

In a similar way, the keilim of Atzilus do not see themselves as separate entities. Although they have specific definitions – this one is chochmah, the other chesed, etc. – they have no conception of self and do not have any sense of individual identity. Nevertheless, the very fact that they are defined entities is something new and, thus, they can be considered as emerging yesh mei’ayin.

See Ramban, Bereishis 1:1, which states, “There is no term in the Holy Tongue for bringing into being a yesh, [an entity with a consciousness of self,] from ayin, nothing, other than barah, ‘create.’ ” Although the souls and angels of the world of Beriah are totally batel – their identities are utterly subsumed – to G‑d, they are all yesh mi shebatel, an entity that nullifies itself (Torah Or, p. 13a, et al.).

Note the explanations in the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 2, pp. 1151, 1155; Vol. 3, 1442ff., et al.; the maamar entitled Ein Eroch Lecha, 5694 (Sefer HaMaamarim 5711, p. 107; et al.) that the ultimate concept ein eroch applies in this world.

Ein eroch means “there is no comparison.” When an entity is brought into being in an ilah ve’elul (cause-and-effect) relationship, there is a direct connection and, therefore, a point of comparison between the two. By contrast, as mentioned in footnote 32, when something comes into being yesh mei’ayin, as a new entity, its connection to its source is not apparent, and thus it can be said that there is no comparison between the two.

True, as stated in the main text, there are many examples of entities that emerge from their source as new, and not as direct extensions of their source. Nevertheless, the most radical example of a new entity – and, therefore, the ultimate concept of ein eroch – is expressed in the emergence of our material world from its spiritual source.

See Ikarim, Discourse 1, ch. 23, quoted in Sefer HaMaamarim 5701, p. 84, et al.

See Sefer HaArachim-Chabad, Vol. 1, erech ahavas Hashem, the increase in the love for G‑d brought about by the animal soul (sec. 4), and the sources mentioned there, et al.

Berachos 33b; note the sources mentioned there. By including this quote, the Rebbe implies that the Divine service the Jews carry out is regarded as new by G‑d since the avodah comes about through their choice and not by His dictates.

Eichah Rabbah 1:33. See Sifri, Devarim 33:5. By including this quote, the Rebbe implies that the Jews’ Divine service generates new energy Above.

See Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Naso, sec. 16, et al.; Tanya, the beginning of ch. 36.

Berachos 57b.

Note our Sages’ saying (Yevamos 63a), “Any man who does not possess land is not a man.” Tosafos (Yevamos, loc. cit., s.v. she’ein) interprets this as referring to land on which to build a dwelling. This can be connected with the well-known concept (see the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, pp. 7ff., 446ff., et al.) that the intent [to establish] “a dwelling in the lowest world” is rooted in G‑d’s Essence that transcends all revealed levels of G‑dliness.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 19, pp. 384-385. Although in many sources, the term “the Sublime Man,” is interpreted as referring to “the image of the likeness of man on the throne” (Yechezkel 1:26), understood in Chassidus (Torah Or, p. 77b; Toras Menachem, Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, Vol. 2, p. 310, et al.) as referring to a reflection of the Ten Sefiros of Atzilus. Nevertheless, from the context of the sichah here and the source cited, it is clear that it refers to G‑d’s Essence.

See secs. 2-3 of the explanation of the maamar entitled Acharei, Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 20d ff., and secs. 2 and 5 of the maamar entitled Vehayah Bayom Hahu, Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 58b ff., sec. 1 of the second maamar entitled Mizmor Shir, Likkutei Torah, loc. cit., p. 99a ff., et al.

The level of G‑dly light that transcends the worlds still shares some sort of connection to the structure of the worlds. Thus, that level of G‑dly light is referred to as the light that is sovev kol almin, “encompassing all the worlds.” That very term implies that it shares a connection to the worlds. By contrast, the G‑dly light that “transcends the entire framework of the worlds’ [existence]” reflects G‑d’s Essence and thus has no connection to the worlds’ limitations whatsoever.

See the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, pp. 4, 509ff., et al. Tzimtzum refers the process of G‑d contracting and limiting His “light” in order to make possible a finite, worldly existence. As explained in the beginning of the kabbalistic work Etz Chayim, G‑d’s initial contraction of His light left “an empty cavity,” and it is in that “empty cavity” that all existence came into being.

As explained in the series of maamarim cited previously, the intent is twofold: a) that the light that transcends the entire framework of the worlds’ existence be drawn down within the worlds and even within this material world, and b) that a new light transcending even the light that shines before the tzimtzum would be elicited from G‑d’s Essence.

In the previous sections, the Rebbe delineated three new dimensions that will be brought out by man’s Divine service: a) material existence will be transformed into a dwelling for G‑d, something entirely new; b) while carrying out this Divine service, a Jew will connect with the very essence of his soul, revealing qualities that are new to him; c) this Divine service will elicit a new dimension of G‑dly light.

See Torah Or, p. 7c; the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, pp. 12ff, 18ff, et al.

See Torah Or, loc. cit., and p. 96a; the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, p. 15, et al.

See the Maggid of Mezritch’s Or Torah on the verse under discussion, where he states, “ ‘[A railing,’ i.e.,] a barrier ‘for your roof,’ the intent is ‘your self-aggrandizement,’… that your heart not become haughty.” See the extensive explanation in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 24, p. 141ff.

Note the explanation in the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666 ( the maamar entitled Acharei Havayah Elokeichem Teileichu, and those that follow) regarding a simple servant. Such a servant does not carry out his Divine service as a result of the revelation of light, but because of the acceptance G‑d’s yoke, the fear of Heaven, and utter bittul. For this reason, such service is of a novel nature, i.e., it does not draw on an existing spiritual potential, but, on the contrary, reveals a new dimension within the servant’s Divine service that he was entirely incapable of bringing out beforehand, and through that service, calls forth an entirely new dimension within his physical being. It is through such service that a dwelling for G‑d is established in this lowest world, drawing down new light. Consult the extensive explanations in that source.

Based on the above – that erecting a railing is associated with transforming our world into a dwelling for G‑d – it is possible to explain the inner, mystical rationale why the obligation and the positive commandment of constructing a railing applies only regarding a dwelling (and not a barn, storehouse, or the like) (Sifri on the verse; Rambam, Hilchos Rotzei’ach 11:1; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 427:1; the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, Hilchos Shemiras Guf VeNefesh, subsection 1.)

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 2, p. 385; Vol. 9, p. 138, footnote 28, which explain that, based on the above, it is possible to resolve two seemingly conflicting rulings by Rambam. In Hilchos Berachos 11:8, 12, Rambam rules that a blessing is recited when erecting a railing, although previously (ibid. 11:4), he rules that a blessing is not recited for performing an activity whose object is to avoid danger. Consult the sources in Likkutei Sichos. It can be said that the negative commandment involves avoiding danger, but the positive commandment has another intent as well.

The intent is that the negative commandment should not be viewed merely as a safeguard to prevent one from falling into undesirable circumstances, but as a springboard for positive growth.

Note Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 10, p. 103ff.

Note that the ultimate purpose of marriage is to “be fruitful and multiply.” The potential for reproduction stems from G‑d’s infinite Essence as it is drawn down to this physical plane (see Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, p. 40a; this is explained at length in the series of maamarim entitled Samach Tisamach, 5657, p. 5ff.).

Talmud Yerushalmi, Bikkurim 3:3; Midrash Shmuel, ch. 17; Rashi, Bereishis 36:3; see Rama, Even HaEzer 61:1 and commentaries, which explain that the forgiveness is connected to the concept of teshuvah. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 170.

The need for progressively advanced levels of teshuvah is explained in Tanya, ch. 29 (p. 36b).

Sotah 17a.

The entire Shir HaShirim is based on this analogy, as explained by our Sages.

See Tzafnas Panei’ach, K’llaei HaTorah VehaMitzvos, erech Kiddushin, and the sources cited there. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 19, p. 217ff. (translated below, sec. 4, p. 350ff.).

Kiddushin 2b.

See Devarim Rabbah 1:6. See also the extensive explanation in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 22, p. 52ff.; Sefer HaSichos 5748, Vol. 2, p. 661ff., and footnote 115 in that source.

The anniversary of the wedding of the Rebbe Rayatz, 5657. See footnote 22 in the main text.

איכה רבה פ״א, לג. וראה ספרי ברכה לג, ה.