Forty years ago, R’ Alexander Bin-Nun wrote fascinating notes with deep Chassidic explanations along with stories of Chassidim that were not well known. * The Rebbe saw these notes and told him to publish them but they disappeared and were only found recently and given to Beis Moshiach to publicize. * We are pleased to present part two of his notes which include unknown Chassidic thought, especially those which he heard from the Rebbe’s father.
Prepared for publication by R’ Yaron Dotan
R’ Alexander Bin-Nun wrote these notes in 5735-5736. He starts by writing: Concepts, aphorisms, Chabad expressions and stories that I heard, compiled from books and from Chassidim who related them, from my youth until today, in Yeshivas Tomchei T’mimim in Russia, Eretz Yisroel, and the United States and from the Rebbe and his father, the holy kabbalist, R’ Levi, in his city, Nissan-Elul 5687/1927.
FROM RABBI LEVI YITZCHOK
THE FOURTH PART OF THE CHARIOT
On Shabbos, at the third meal, R’ Levi Yitzchok would speak for two hours and more in kabbala and amazing gematriyos. Here is what I once heard and wrote down. “The Avos are the [divine] chariot,” as is known, but there were only three Avos and a chariot consists of four [sides], so who is the fourth? It is Dovid Malka Meshicha. Why not Moshe Rabbeinu? Because Moshe was in chutz la’Aretz (outside Eretz Yisroel) and Dovid was in the Holy Land and when he sinned he sought repentance and was forgiven as is known (I don’t remember if this was the exact wording).
FOUR FORMS ON THE CHARIOT
R’ Levi Yitzchok spoke further about the chariot that had four forms:
The lion on the chariot corresponds to Avrohom Avinu, the aspect of g’vura which overcame the tests (even though Avrohom is always the aspect of chesed and Yitzchok is g’vura, this is what I think he said).
The ox on the chariot is Yitzchok for “and to the cattle ran Avrohom” with the news from the angels that Yitzchok would be born.
The man on the chariot is Yaakov for “the beauty of Yaakov is like the beauty of Adam HaRishon.” And about Yaakov it says, “because you have exercised power with [an angel of] G-d and with men and have prevailed.”
The eagle on the chariot is Dovid Malka (my memory is faulty, either because “as an eagle awakens its nest, hovering over its fledglings,” or from the root “shedding its feathers”).
AVROHOM – AGAINST EVERYONE
When I was in R’ Levi Yitzchok’s house, one of the balabatim asked him the meaning of the verse in Yechezkel (33:24), “Avrohom was one.”
I was clearing the table at the time, his son Berel was busy in the kitchen, and Leibel was, as usual, immersed in a book. I heard the rav explain it thus, “Although he was one person and the entire world was against him, and even his father’s household was against him, he still was Avrohom. Throughout the generations we need to learn from Avrohom.”
WHY DOESN’T THE OX WEAR A YARMULKA?
R’ Levi Yitzchok once turned to me and asked me, “It says (Kiddushin 31, BK 38, 87), ‘greater is the one who is commanded and does than someone who is not commanded and does.’ Logic would say that a volunteer is greater than someone obligated in mitzvos, ‘and the Torah speaks in human terms,’ for ‘this [Torah] is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations … and they will say, only this great nation is wise and is an understanding people.’ Why isn’t a volunteer lauded when he does what he doesn’t have to do?
We can answer this by delving a little deeper. Why is it that “greater is the one who is commanded and does?” Why is he commanded? Why is he obligated? It is a sign and indication that he can oppose the order, and decide whether to fulfill these mitzvos, because he has an evil inclination and he has free choice and the ability not to do the mitzva, and he does it anyway. Therefore, “greater is the one who is commanded,” since despite everything, he fulfills it and overcomes the evil.
As for someone who is not commanded, the question is, why is he not commanded? For example, a child is not commanded to put on tallis and t’fillin; at night we are exempt from tzitzis; one who cannot do a mitzva due to forces beyond his control is exempt; a woman is exempt from certain mitzvos – why are there exemptions from mitzvos for certain categories of people and certain times?
The answer is: Since the child until he matures has no evil inclination, he has no interest in certain sins as he will when he is 13-14; a woman is exempt from tallis and t’fillin since she has no inclination towards those sins which tallis and t’fillin deal with, fight with, nullify or push aside. Therefore, the rule is, “The Torah was not given to ministering angels,” for if a man has no desire or inclination which opposes Torah and mitzvos, the Torah does not demand that he fulfill those mitzvos.
As an aside he added, “An ox has no obligation to don a yarmulke,” as the battle of inclinations is exclusively the job of man.
TRUTH – ONE LINE
“Truth in its purest sense – is that which from beginning to end is a straight line, one line.”
FROM CHASSIDIM
THE PATH TO “EXERTION OF THE SOUL”
“Exertion of the flesh and exertion of the soul” is a phrase that is commonplace and accepted in Chabad. I heard from my mashpia, R’ Shlomo Chaim, in 5688 in Polotzk, that although they are different in essence, they depend on one another and follow one another, for you cannot attain “exertion of the soul” without first experiencing “exertion of the flesh,” as the latter is a sine qua non to success in the former.
THE ADVANTAGE OF EMOTIONAL SENSITIVITY
I heard from R’ Yitzchok Masmid in 5687, “In the place where baalei regesh (those who possess an emotional sensitivity for matters of holiness) stand, great sages cannot stand.”
THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE TREE OF LIFE
I heard an explanation from my uncle, R’ Yisroel Levin Neveler, about the Tree of Knowledge which was “good and evil,” as opposed to the Tree of Life:
1-The revealed part of Torah is compared to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil because the Torah contains differences of opinion - “good and evil,” kosher and pasul, pure and impure, permissible and forbidden, death and life, division and dispute.
2-The inner part of Torah, Kabbala and Chassidus, is the Tree of Life with no disputes and division.
REBBE AND CHASSID
Also from my uncle, R’ Yisroel Levin Neveler: Rebbe and Chassid are like father and son, essence and extension, luminary and light, cause and effect, amorphous potential and actualized revelation, ayin and yesh.
THE FOUNDATION OF PRAYER
I heard from the Chassidim in Nevel in 5685: An established principle of prayer is that the one davening recognize his true state and that his prayer be “a sincere expression from the innermost point of the heart” in order to rectify that which needs fixing.
G-D’S MERCIES
It says in the verse, “And He made for Adam and his wife tunics of leather and dressed them.” I heard from the Chassidim, why doesn’t it say, “tunics of leather to wear?” Why was it necessary to dress them? Was it not enough that Hashem provided them with leather tunics?
The answer is, this is the source that Hashem is compassionate, for although they sinned (this verse is a continuation of the verses of curses) He actively dressed them, “because Your right hand is outstretched to receive penitents,” “and You give a hand to willful sinners,” even when they do not repent. This is the source for “the nature of Good is to do good,” “chanun v’rachum Hashem” (the source for this may be in the Shelah or Zohar).
ONE WHO DOES NOT MERIT TO SHINE
On the verse “Lech lecha,” Rashi says, “for your benefit and good.” And on the next verse “And there I will make you into a great nation,” Rashi comments, “here you will not merit children.”
Why did Avrohom have to leave in order to merit children and the revelation of G-dliness. Couldn’t he remain in Ur Kasdim and have Hashem bless him with all the blessings and then he could enter the land with a son and wealth, for “to your children I will give this land?”
I heard from the Chassidim: So that the light of holiness would shine in him. This is analogous to a piece of firewood that does not catch fire. What do you do? You move it around and then the fire catches and gives off light. So too, someone who does not merit to illuminate in this place, “should go and move himself somewhere else and will merit the light there.”
FROM WHENCE WILL MY HELP COME?
On the verses, “I raise my eyes to the mountains, from whence will my help come – my help is from Hashem, the One who makes heaven and earth” - In Charkov in 5687 I heard from R’ Mottel Ellinson (and from R’ Yeshaya Voronov): What is the question here – from whence will my help come? Did Dovid not know, or was he doubtful, G-d forbid? Did he not know and recognize that his help is from Hashem? If so, why does he ask and what change took place after he asked?
Furthermore, T’hillim is a book for all Jews in all times, “the Torah of truth,” and “everlasting life he implanted within us,” so the question and answer pertain to every single Jew!
The answer is: The holy Dovid HaMelech thought, recognized, and said that since Hashem is infinitely removed from Creation, and “no thought can grasp Him,” as He is by definition beyond the grasp of man, therefore, how can the infinite G-d supervise me and take an interest in my fate when “I am a worm and not a man?”
However, afterward, Dovid says: I came to a realization by contemplating the fact that Hashem “is the One who makes heaven and earth,” i.e. Hashem created, gave life to, and sustains heavens and earth and all creations that are a lower level than me because they have no neshama. So my hope is that Hashem, who makes even the heavens and the earth will surely supervise and incline His kindness and mercy toward me, for I have a neshama and fulfill His commandments.
THE INNER MEANING OF “EXCHANGING WIVES”
I heard from the Chassid, R’ Meir Simcha Chein, at a farbrengen in Nevel in 1924 where those present included: R’ Refael Kahn, the moreh tzedek of Nevel, brother-in-law of R’ Refael Folye Kahn the son of R’ Boruch Sholom Kahn of Moscow, R’ Itzke Lipa’s, R’ Yona Poltaver, R’ Yisroel the butcher, R’ Peretz Laine, the two Levin brothers, R’ Feitel and R’ Gershon Ber, and others. R’ Meir Simcha said that Chassidim went to the Alter Rebbe bitterly, “with tremendous agitation,” and said the Misnagdim were making up stories that G-d forbid, “they exchanged wives.”
The Alter Rebbe leaned his face on his arms and covered his face with his hands, was silent for some time and then, in a special tune, he said, “But they are correct.”
When the Chassidim looked horrified and brokenhearted, he explained:
“Their wives” means “that which is forgotten,” “nashim” from the root (Mikeitz 41:51), “G-d made me forget all my toil.” That means, man can forgive everything but when his “deficiencies” are mentioned this he cannot tolerate, for man’s nature is to forget his deficiencies and mistakes.
Chassidus reads the term as follows “they exchange their nashim,” their deficiencies – meaning, you tell me what I lack, what I forgot, and I will tell you your failings that you forgot. This is the meaning of “exchanging nashim,” and this is accomplished through a Chassidic farbrengen.
(I heard this idea also from my mashpia, R’ Meir Blizinsky of Ramat Gan in 5737.)
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “AN EVIL DEED” AND “SIMILAR TO EVIL”
I heard from Chassidim in Moscow in 5682: There is acting in a way “similar to evil” like Avrohom Avinu who expelled his wife and son, Yaakov and Eisav, Yehuda and Tamar, Yosef’s brothers. All these appeared bad but the deed was good because the results, in the progression of the generations, are viewed in the light of eternity and providence. And there is an “evil deed” like Adam and Chava, Kayin and Hevel, Zimri ben Salu, Bilam and his blessings, etc.
THEIR JUDGE – THEIR LEADER
I heard from the holy Chassid, R’ Yitzchok Masmid when he was in Kursk in 5688-89 that he said, I forget who he was quoting: “The righteous – their good inclination rules them; wicked ones – their evil inclination rules them” - “rules them” means leads them.
I wonder about this, if it fits with the explanation in Tanya (chapter 13, p. 18), and I think it conflicts with this explanation and I have difficulty with this.
RECIPE FOR SUCCESS AGAINST THE YETZER
When I was in Kremenchug in 5687, I heard from the veteran Chassid and shochet, R’ Yisroel Noach, who saw in a seifer of Chassidus or kabbalah the meaning of the verse (T’hillim 8), “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings You have ordained strength to destroy the enemy and avenger.” What connection is there between the first part of the verse and the second, and how is the enemy destroyed through the tots?
The explanation is: It is only from the age of 13 that a person is obligated in mitzvos. That means, until age 13, the evil inclination rules the child in an “unlimited dominion,” and there is nothing to stop it. Therefore, upon reaching age 13, from where will a boy draw the soul powers and positive habits to fight the evil inclination that he was accustomed to from birth?
Regarding this, the verse says, “out of the mouths of babes and sucklings You have ordained strength” - while still a babe and suckling we have to educate him and accustom him to mitzvos, fear of heaven, fear of sin, and to the ways of Chassidus, so that when he reaches 13 he can vanquish the enemy and avenger, i.e. the evil inclination which was already entrenched and strengthened by habits of body and soul.
Therefore, we must educate the babes and sucklings and establish strength within them, of Torah and mitzvos, preparing them for the future, for an age when they will be obligated in mitzvos, in order to destroy the enemy and avenger.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “TAM” AND “SHALEIM”
I heard from the Chassid, R’ Mottel Ellinson, as we walked to the mikva in the winter in Charkov, Erev Yud-Tes Kislev, before his trip to Yekaterinoslav, the Rebbe’s hometown:
It says in the Shelah about Yaakov Avinu that he was “an ish tam who dwelt in tents,” and after returning from Lavan’s house the Torah calls him “shaleim” as it says, “and Yaakov came shaleim.” What is the difference between these two terms and levels and is there a connection in time and place with these descriptions?
The Shelah answers: When Yaakov was in Avrohom and Yitzchok’s house and he did not wage war with evil and he did not even encounter Eisav except for one time with the selling of the birthright, he was a “tam.” It was only after being in Lavan’s house and fighting with the angel of Eisav and encountering Eisav that the Torah refers to him as “shaleim.”
The level of “shaleim” is higher than the level of “tam.” This perfection comes only after a battle and so the verse says (Toldos 32), “For I have seen G-d – the angel of Eisav – face to face and my soul was saved;” only once he vanquished the “angel of Eisav” was Yaakov sure that he would overcome his brother Eisav when he met him.
THE INNER STRUGGLES OF COMMUNISTS WHO SEEK TO REPENT
In the summer of 1925, I learned in Tomchei T’mimim in Nevel. Many decrees were promulgated against Torah and the performance of mitzvos. There were also communists who wanted to do t’shuva and were unable to do so, whether because they were ashamed or because they were afraid.
I learned the maamer in Likkutei Torah, “Adam Ki Yakriv Mikem” with my uncle, R’ Yisroel Neveler. R’ Yisroel said in his fluent, mischievous, somewhat wild way that he heard from the rav of Poltava or Kremenchug, R’ Rafaelowitz, on the verse (or maybe he said that R’ Rafaelowitz heard it or read it in the writings of Chassidus), “I wandered like a lost sheep, seek Your servant, for I did not forget Your commandments.”
Question #1-Why like a sheep and not a donkey or ox which the Torah refers to (Ki Seitzei 22)?
Question #2-What does “seek Your servant” followed by “for I did not forget Your commandments” mean?
His answer, to the best of my recollection, was that the nature of a sheep, when it’s with the flock, is to be quiet. But when the flock moves away from it, it begins to bleat. That’s what the verse means, “I wandered like a lost sheep”- when I cry out because the flock has moved on, a wolf is likely to hear and realize that I’m lost and the flock is far away and there is no shepherd, and then it will pounce on me. If I am quiet, then the wolf won’t kill me but the shepherd won’t know I am missing and the flock will move even further and I won’t catch up, and again the wolf will find me since there is no shepherd to protect me.
That is the situation when man has moved away from Torah and mitzvos. He is like a lost sheep. He cannot cry out because the wolf/government/friends will hear that he wants to return to the flock, to the shepherd, to Jews and Hashem, and then they will pounce upon him and he is afraid of them.
If, however, he keeps quiet, the flock and shepherd – his brothers and friends the Chassidim – won’t know and will keep their distance from him. What recourse does he have?
This is the Chassidic explanation according to Chabad on this wondrous verse. These words and their message is worthy of remembrance, for how right they are, and its flavor has not diminished since 5681 until today 5738 (the memory of the righteous for a blessing).
THE PRAYER OF A CHASSID
I once went to the shul where old Itzke Leima’s davened. He did not daven like the rest of the baalei avoda. His davening was without hisbonenus (meditation), without singing, without noise. Rather, he would utter each word like a small child with clear pronunciation and articulation, slowly, word by word, and with chayus, and sometimes he translated into Yiddish.
I stood behind in stocking feet, quietly, so he wouldn’t notice me, and heard him daven, “Ribbono shel olam” - I broke my entire life for You – shivri al Hashem Elokai (a play on the words sivroi al Hashem Elokav), and he cried like a baby. I was frightened. Till today, and 54 years have passed since that amazing moment when I heard him say those words, they echo in my ears, mind, and heart, “Shivri al Hashem Elokai.”
A DIALOGUE AMONG CHASSIDIM
In Tishrei 5687/1926, when I traveled from Nevel with my friend Berke Chein to the Rebbe Rayatz, to Petersburg-Leningrad, I heard a dialogue in the Rebbe’s shul between the dark-haired Rabbi Arlozorov, the rav of Romania, whose son Lazer was my friend in yeshiva, and the rav of Poltava, R’ Rafaelowitz, who was far older than him. This is what they said:
“The Tamim I recommended to be the rav of the shul in the town of (I forgot the name) needs to be married off before he enters the rabbinate.”
R’ Rafaelowitz replied in concurrence: That is for certain, since he would be missing “He remembers the sin of the fathers upon the sons,” and that is a great matter.
***
In my humble opinion, what this means is: When a person has children and he knows and remembers that if he, G-d forbid, sins, the Torah says “He remembers the sin of the fathers upon the sons” - then he is very careful, especially a rav, a mora horaa, a melamed, a shochet. An amazing explanation.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “YAM” AND “RAKIA”
I heard from my teacher, the Chassid R’ Yudel Eber HY”D, maggid shiur in Nevel, in 5684:
Chazal say, “t’cheiles is like the sea and the sea is like the heaven and the heaven is like the heavenly throne.” The question is, why do we need both analogies of sea and heaven? What does the second analogy add? Both are physical entities that are like the color t’cheiles in tzitzis as it says, “and you will see it and remember.” Wouldn’t it be enough to say, “t’cheiles is like the heaven and the heaven is like the heavenly throne” in order to bring and instill fear of heaven into the heart of the oved Hashem?
The answer is: The sea’s main property is that it instills fear and awe, because the endless vista seen by man, the depths, the waves, instills fear like nothing on earth.
If he looks at the sky, although “the heavens relate the glory of G-d,” and the prophet Yeshaya says, “raise up your eyes and see Who created these” - the heavens are far from man’s eyes and heart so that it is doubtful whether the heavens can lead to awe.
When a person sees the heaven, although the “firmament and the heavens” relate and testify [to Hashem’s greatness and transcendence], it is doubtful whether a person’s fear and awe of Hashem will reach the heavenly throne.
Therefore, first the sea is mentioned, which definitely instills fear, and then the more refined analogy is given, that which is more abstract and ethereal and less material and that is “the sea is like the heaven,” so that the one contemplating will grasp the spiritual, G-dly analogue, “and the heaven is like the heavenly throne.”
Two examples are given, first the sea and then the heavens, so that the t’cheiles in the tzitzis will lead “the seer to fear” of the heavenly throne.