The last pencil strokes – different but not separate

 

While the Rebbe’s weekday farbrengens and sichos have been broadcast live worldwide via phone hookup, the Shabbos farbrengens had to be memorized by the chozrim (oral transmitters) and then transcribed by special teams. Since 5746, portions of these weekly transcripts were annotated and extensively referenced to be personally edited by the Rebbe for official publishing in the weekly K’far Chabad and in the Yiddish-language Algemeiner Journal and other mediums.

The official sicha would be published usually on Wednesday, but which chassid would wait so long?

So immediately after Shabbos, a variety of synopses of the farbrengen, a taktzir, rad and tochen katzar in Hebrew, would be prepared and faxed to chassidim worldwide.

These publications were obviously always brought into the Rebbe, but with no expectation that it be mugah — edited — by the Rebbe.

On a few rare occasions though, it did happen. One was on Motzaei Shabbos Vayakhel. The Rebbe, unexpectedly, released the taktzir with a few pencil-written edits and asked that it be reprinted. The edits are grammatical corrections on the first line of the page, nothing too grand at first glance.

But nothing the Rebbe does is insignificant. Every word and nuance is precise and carries a profound message.

This is true always, but especially emphasized in our case:

In retrospect, this few “simple” pencil markings were the last written hagaha we have from the Rebbe zol gezunt zein for the time being, as just a day later the Rebbe entered the phase of Es cholyenu hu nasa (a posuk describing the pains Melech HaMoshiach takes upon himself instead of them falling upon the Jewish people).

The sicha of Shabbos Vayakhel was the last farbrengen that we merited to hear to date, and the full transcript of it was never edited by the Rebbe.

Not Only “Food for the Way”

I once shared this story at a farbrengen or shiur at our Chabad House in Flatbush, and my friend Moishe Kampin, one of our beloved congregates, wanted to know the significance of the edits.

I never gave it thought, I just saw the hagaha as many of us understood it then, after what happened that Monday afternoon — as a sort of “gesture” from the Rebbe to us, saying, “I know you won’t be getting the full hagaha this week, so I’m giving you something to hold on to, like a package with tzeida laderech — food for the way.”

But Moishe was right. There must something more to this.

The Rebbe Melech haMoshiach famously wrote in 5711, before he formally took on the leadership of Chabad, that “Halevai (if only) Anash, and particularly the temimim, would carefully study the works of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, even his sichos, and in particular those of the year 5710 and the preceding year” to gain encouragement in this hard time, and mainly insight into what it is we must be doing to be part of the Rebbe’s holy work.

If that was the case then, when the chassidim had the Rebbe present to fill the “void” left by the histalkus of the Frierdeiker Rebbe, how much more so now, when all we have to turn to are to the instructions the Rebbe left for us in his teachings, especially the most recent ones!

Especially since — as the Rebbe taught is in the last mamar he edited and handed out, Kuntres Purim Katan 5752 — there is an emphasis as great as ever on what Chassidus calls Avoda B’koach Atzmo — using our so-called “own” powers to serve Hashem, including searching for the best ways to do this avoda.

So I began to explore.

The 3 Hagahos

What were the Rebbe’s edits?

A. The first paragraph (freely translated) goes something like this: “According to calendar setting of most years, the parshiyos Vayakhel and Pekudei are connected.”

The Rebbe crossed out the word “most” (רוב) and replaced it with “many” (כמה וכמה).

— Factually speaking, “most” years is correct. In 12 out of the 19-year calendar cycle Vayakhel and Pekudei are indeed read together —  

Why this change from “most” to “many”?

B. The original sicha continues that “the novelty (החידוש) in this year’s calendar setting is…” The Rebbe erased the word “the novelty” and added a vav to b’kvius, leaving the sentence to read “and in this year’s calendar setting the parshiyos are read…”

C. The original continues to read that in this year “the parshiyos Vayakhel and Pekudei are separated (נפרדות), each to itself (בפ”ע - בפני עצמן).”

The Rebbe crossed out the phrase “each to itself.”

This edit is also quite an obvious one; if the parshiyos are read separately, obviously each is it to itself. The redundancy is simply unnecessary.

Like I said, the edits appear to be simple grammatical ones. But what do they teach us? 

Save the Drama

So firstly, I think there is a lesson we can apply to many areas in our life — be it our relationships with our spouses and children, in our shlichus, in community affairs and what not.

There is a notion out there that in order to bring your point across, you must “radicalize” your message. “Be clear about your position” people say, and we tend to think that using unequivocal and sharp terms and language will make the message clear.

I discussed these hagahos with Rabbi Nachman Shapiro, a member of the Va’ad L’Hafotzas Sichos, who had the zechus to prepare the Likkutei Sichos for hagaha by the Rebbe and for print. He told me that these edits are typical: “The Rebbe always stays away from using radical terms.”

“Rov,” “Bifnei atzman” etc., are all strong terms. The message is clear enough to be understood even without the boost that strong words and terms give it.

That’s a lesson for life:

Drama is a powerful tool, but not everything needs drama to bring it across. Think before you apply it, many a time the you can allow the message to speak for itself. Reserve the strong terms for truly urgent topics.

We can take an example from the Rebbe on the proper use of such terms. The Rebbe speaks in a calmer tone of voice and usually in more “generic” terms, but when it comes to Moshiach and shleimus ha’aretz and the like, the Rebbe’s pain and passion comes out, giving these topics a heightened urgency.

***

The Rebbe (Rashab) Nishmaso Eden said in the name of the Rebbe Maharash, that innovating your own commentaries on Tanya is discouraged, unless it is in matters of avodah and leads to improving one’s character.

I don’t know if what I’m about to explain is actually what the Rebbe meant with these pencil strokes, but I’m quite convinced that the lesson itself is true. Especially since the Rebbe is actually asking us, “Please be medakdek and look for clues in the recent sichos. I put them there for you to find!”

The final mission the Rebbe gave us, to publicize his message of the imminence of the coming of Moshiach and of preparing the world to greet him, is a challenging one in many respects; it demands a total mind shift and change of perspective both on the part of the chassid — the carrier of the message, and the same is what we are actually requesting of the people we share this message with.

Naturally, people being different from each other approach this task differently. What makes it worse is when our ego gets involved, as the Rebbe once said in response to complaints about an individual shliach, “I cannot remove his nefesh habehamis from him.”

And so, in the 28 years since we were charged with this mission, we became two groups, divided largely along these lines.

Hagaha #3
Different, not Estranged

Vayakhel and Pekudei are nifrados, just like people are separate and different from one another. Each has its own way to go about things. But why be bifnei atzmam? Why must our differences lead to us being estranged from each other? Why can’t we communicate about our differences?

Many people will say “Lubavitch is united. Look, we go to each others simchas; We are civil towards others who don’t see eye-to-eye with us.”

That’s true, and we have what to be proud of if we compare our machlokes to what goes on in other groups when they become divided.

But the Rebbe wants us to greet Moshiach!

Unfortunately, whenever we practice achdus in this sense, we agree to not get into the Moshiach “controversy.” We must get into the Moshiach issue; we must talk about it and get moving with it!

The biggest “loser” of this machlokes is the Moshiach campaign itself. Being different and having different opinions on any given topic is actually a plus.

This is especially true with mivtza Moshiach: with regard to mivtza Moshiach the rebbe requires that we should present it to each person “beofen hamiskabel etzel kol echad v’echad” -  in a way that speaks to him, we should communicate it to him or her in a way that he can accept it.

It’s a individualized mivtza unlike any other.

A person of one nature and style would benefit greatly from meeting a shliach that is different than he is, so when he does meet a Jew that is not his “style”, he could know how to communicate to him too an empowering and relevant Moshiach message.

Hagaha #2
Don’t look to be a “Chidush”

But the trick of the Yetzer Harah is to make us sometimes bring out our “chidush,” —  what sets me aside from you. The Rebbe erased the “chidush.” We must stop defining ourselves by what sets us aside from a fellow chassid.

Instead of looking to exemplify our chidushim, the things that set us apart from each other, we should try to erase that approach, like the Rebbe did, and remain factual: “I happen to be different than you, but I am willing to hear and learn from you.”

Hagaha #1
Majority is Not a Factor

The proper approach is hinted in the Rebbe’s first edit; The Rebbe crossed out the word “rov” -  “majority:”

A majority is an overpowering word. It means that one side enforces its opinion on the other. It rules out the other.

Why must one chassid “rule-out” another chassid’s style on Moshiach outreach?! If you think he’s wrong about it, then talk to him!

A family is a unit built from a husband and wife coming together. Men and women were created differently, and in every such relationship disagreements arise. What do you do then?

They must be resolved.

A husband or wife can’t walk away from a disagreement and say “I’ll respect you, I’ll behave civilly, but I can’t talk to you about this anymore.” That would be detrimental to the marriage.

And mivtza Moshiach is suffering from this very problem.

Two Styles, not Two Sides

In the famous sicha of chof ches Nissan, the Rebbe said that bringing Moshiach should be done in a way of oros d’tohu but in keilim d’tikun.

Simplified, oros d’tohu means powerful energy. Keilim d’tikun means organization and order. For high energy to be transmitted in an orderly manner is a challenge, but it’s the only way to go about it.

Moshiach is high-energy concept, it’s new to many people. But it most of all it is demanding and requires a change of attitude, and to facilitate that, this high-energy must be directed in an organized way.

It sometimes seems like the only one who took the Rebbe serious with regard to Moshiach was the Satan... He employed his favorite tactic of machlokes l’shem Shamayim to create an unwanted situation of bifnei atzman and estrangement among the different styles of chassidim.

The result of this estrangement is communities, yeshivos, Chabad Houses and schools where Moshiach is a topic way on the bottom of the agenda, while in other communities and institutions Moshiach activities and messages are sometimes presented in unpatable ways.

The shluchim and chassidim that do have a proper balance of the two are often forced to choose to which “side” they belong…

Why have styles turned into sides?

The “keilim d’tikun” style shluchim are busy dealing with problems Judaism faces in the modern world, not realizing that the solution to these problems is living with a heightened Moshiach awareness, and the “oros d’tohu” style shluchim at times don’t appreciate the sensitivity of particular aspects of Moshiach, especially among communities that have knowledge, but non sufficient knowledge, about Moshiach.

If only these two “sides” would be willing to do away with estranging the other, and see each others approach as a legitimate way, even if each feels that the other’s way needs improvements, the improvement will surely come to both ends when they would communicate with some bitul to the Rebbe.

The Rebbe, by erasing the term “bifnei atzman” is telling us “don’t let your nifrados, your differences, make you into bifnei atzman, into two groups which see each other as strangers!”

We are one Chabad, under one Rebbe, we all believe that the Rebbe is Nasi Hador, and every word the Rebbe said is accepted by us an absolute truth, including that “Nasi Hador is the Moshiach shabdor.”

We are one Lubavitch with a variety of opinions and styles, but why over styles of outreach have we come to be two factions?

In the Rebbe’s Own Words

And after my commentary, and I would love to hear from my fellow chassidim other dikdukim in the last sicha, hopefully after we get to hear Torah chadsaha, I want to end with a thought the Rebbe said clearly at this farbrengen:

“Even when it is necessary to prevent a fellow Jew from an undesired behavior — the most effective way is to influence him in a pleasant and peaceful manner.”

We all know how to offer criticism on what we think is undesired behavior, but may we should try the more effective way…

This form of achdus is not easy, it’s much easier to fight for the Rebbe’s sake than to make peace for the Rebbe’s sake. So let’s remember another important point the Rebbe told us at that last farbrengen till this week when we will surely see the Rebbe again.

“Machtzis Hashekel teaches us and clarifies that a Jew cannot become a complete entity a “Shekel Hakodesh” unless he joins together with another Jew. Each Jew himself is ten gerah, a half a shekel only. When, however, he joins together with another Jew, they reach twenty gerah, a complete entity.”

We cannot bring Moshiach by giving up on ever getting a fellow chassid involved.

Let’s bring Moshiach, together! ■