1. Today is the Shabbos following the festival of Shavuos and therefore has a special connection to the concept of the Season of the Giving of our Torah. This is especially so since the concepts of Shabbos and Torah are related, as emphasized by the Talmud which states that “All agree the Torah was given on Shabbos.” The function of both Shabbos and Torah is to elevate and raise up each Jew to his rightful position. A soul descends from its lofty position Above to below, and the concepts of Shabbos and Torah elevate the Jewish soul to its true lofty position.

When a Jew is in this world, the very existence of the world does not allow him to see the truth. “World” in Hebrew is “Olom,” deriving from the word “helem,” meaning “concealment,” for the world conceals the truth. The true existence of the world is G-dliness, created as it is ex nihilo by G-d. Therefore, a Jew should first and foremost be able to see G-dliness in the world. This is especially so since the creation of the world was not a one time affair, but is being constantly created anew every moment — “Who renews in His goodness daily the act of creation.” Hence, a Jew should certainly be able to see G-dliness in the world. or at least a person should be able to see that “There is a Master of this dwelling place” — a lower level of revelation of G-dliness than the recognition of creation every moment. For the title “Master” does not necessarily mean that he built the dwelling place, for even if another built it, and he bought it, he is still “Master.” Whereas in the creation of the world, G-d created the world Himself — ex nihilo.

But, not only is the creation ex nihilo every moment not seen, but there is not even the open revelation of “there is a Master of this dwelling place” — so great are the concealments of this world.

It is because of this that the peoples of the world can err and teach that the world was always in existence, and therefore also the idea of idol-worship can exist. For the same reason, the general service of man is in the manner of free choice — “I have given before you today life and good, evil and death” — and you shall choose life.”

The distinction of Shabbos is that on it the concealments of the world are eliminated, and its true existence — G-dliness — is revealed. On Shabbos, the concept of “He rested” is effected; meaning that all restrictions — including that of speech (with which the world was created) — are removed, and the existence is elevated to the level of thought. Since the world has been elevated, a Jew sees the true existence of the world to be G-dliness, and thereby reaches his true position.

This is expressed also in halachah. The halachah is that although an “Am Ha’aretz” cannot be believed on weekdays, on Shabbos, because every Jew is elevated — “the concept of truth is revealed within him” — he does not lie.

However, this elevation on Shabbos does not suffice, for a Jew must be in his true position also on weekdays. Our Sages tell us that “I was created only to serve my Maker,” meaning that every moment must emphasize the true purpose of a person’s creation — and not just on Shabbos. Indeed, the majority of a week is weekday, for Shabbos is but one day out of seven.

Torah is the medium through which a Jew can reach his true position even on weekdays. Torah is the “Torah of truth” and the “Torah of light” — Torah reveals and illuminates the truth of all things, including the true existence of the world which is G-dliness. Torah is also the “Torah of life,” giving instructions for life; it illuminates a Jew’s path teaching him how to conduct himself all his life (including weekdays) according to G-d’s will. Therefore, also on weekdays a Jew is found in his true position (seeing the truth in the existence of the world — G-dliness), and he is in a state of sanctity (despite engaging in secular activities on weekdays).

This then is the connection between Torah and Shabbos. Just as the function of Shabbos is to elevate and raise up a Jew to his true position, to see the true existence of the world, so too Torah performs the same function on weekdays. Through revealing the truth in all things, a Jew is found in a state of holiness, similar to Shabbos — “the holy Shabbos.”

The above is emphasized even more on the Shabbos following the Season of the Giving of our Torah, for then all the matters of the Season of the Giving of our Torah are elevated to perfection. Moreover, on this Shabbos we read parshas Nasso, which means to “raise up” — to raise every Jew to perfection. This is especially so this year when parshas Nasso is learned for two weeks (since the second day of Shavuos fell on Shabbos, when the reading of parshas Nasso is deferred till the next Shabbos). And since parshas Nasso is learned, one certainly fulfills the lesson derived from it — to “raise” up all Jews.

Since “deed is the essential thing,” all the above must be translated into action. Indeed, the concept of “deed is the essential thing” is not just a commandment to translate everything into action, but is also a promise and assurance that these things will eventuate in deed. The Alter Rebbe explains that the commandment “You shall love the L-rd your G-d” is also an assurance that a Jew will certainly love G-d, for the words “You shall love” denotes both commandment and assurance. Likewise, the words “Raise up the head of the children of Israel” is both a command and an assurance that it will be fulfilled. Similarly, the command “deed is the essential thing” is both an instruction and a promise that it will come to be translated into action.

In practical terms: Every Jew must increase in his diligence in Torah study, and as a result, “great is study for it leads to deed — one also increases in fulfilling mitzvos properly. And consonant with the command “You shall love your fellow as yourself,” we must also work to see that others do likewise.

Through the above, we merit to be in the position of “to all the children of Israel there was light in their dwelling places” — that even while still in the last days of exile, the service of Jews effect that darkness is transformed into light. And very soon we merit the fulfillment of the promise “House of Yaakov, come, let us walk in the light of the L-rd” — through the true light, the light of Torah, extending to the greatest light of all, the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach.

2. In the previous farbrengen (on Shavuos) it was explained that the first day of Shavuos (6th of Sivan) could fall out on Shabbos only in the times when the new moon was fixed by visual sighting, whereas when the calendar is fixed (as nowadays), the 6th of Sivan can never be on Shabbos. This means that the “Season of the Giving of our Torah” every year can only be on the same day as it was originally in the days of the month (6th of Sivan), but never on the same day of the week (Shabbos — “All agree the Torah was given on Shabbos”). Although all the festivals are fixed by the date of the month and not the day of the week, nevertheless, when the festival does fall out on the same day of the week as it was originally, additional enthusiasm for the concept of “these days are remembered and kept” is generated — since it is exactly the same date (both in the day of the month and day of the week) as it was the original time.

According to this, there is a seeming deficiency in the festival of Shavuos compared to other festivals. other festivals can fall out on the same day of the week as the original time, whereas Shavuos can never do so.

However, Shavuos can fall out as the original time, for the second day of Shavuos can fall out on Shabbos (as this year). This second day of Yom Tov which is celebrated only in exile is not just a general concept equally applicable to all the festivals, but each second day of Yom Tov has a unique concept that is peculiarly associated to the festival of which it is the second day. Hence, when the second day of Yom Tov is on Shabbos, Shavuos does fall out on the same day as it was originally.

The above emphasizes the distinction of the countries outside Eretz Yisrael compared to Eretz Yisrael. The idea of second day Yom Tov only exists outside Eretz Yisrael, and hence Shavuos can only fall out on the same day of the week it did originally (on Shabbos) outside Eretz Yisrael. For since Shavuos is only one day in Eretz Yisrael, it can never be on Shabbos.

In the light of the above, that when a festival is on the same day of the week as originally it gives added enthusiasm in the concept of “these days are remembered and kept,” this year, when Shavuos is on the same day as it was originally, there is added loftiness and enthusiasm in all its concepts. First and foremost, there must be extra diligence in the study of Torah and the fulfillment of mitzvos.

Consonant to the commandment “You shall love your fellow as yourself,” one must work to see that others do likewise. This is achieved, first and foremost, through the Mitzvah campaigns: Ahavas Yisrael, Education, Torah, Tefillin, Mezuzah, Tzedakah, House full of Jewish books, Shabbos and Yom Tov lights, Kashrus, and Family Purity. And the most recent campaign, to unite all Jews through each purchasing a letter in one of the Sefer Torahs being written to unite all Jewry.

3. A large part of parshas Nasso is devoted to the offerings for the Mishkan brought by the princes of the tribes at the dedication of the Mishkan. Although the offerings of each prince were identical, the Torah nevertheless still recounts the offerings of each prince separately. At the end of the parshah, the Torah tells us the sum total of the offerings of the 12 princes. Ch. 7, verse 84 states: “This was the dedication-offering for the altar on the day when it was anointed, from the princes of Israel: twelve silver dishes (i.e. the sum total of the princes’ offerings — one for each prince) twelve silver bowls, twelve golden cups...” Rashi, on the words “twelve silver dishes,” comments that “these are the same ones which they donated, and no defect happened to them.” In other words, Rashi is explaining why it is necessary for the Torah to tell us that the princes donated twelve silver dishes, when the Torah has told us previously that each of the twelve princes each gave one silver dish. It is obvious then that the total is twelve. Thus Rashi explains that the Torah is telling us that “these are the same ones which they donated, and no defect happened to them,” meaning, that although some time had passed from when they donated it to the time they actually brought it, no defect happened to their offerings in the meantime.

Likewise, in the following verse (7:85), Rashi explains why it is necessary to repeat the weight of each of the dishes and basins; and in the verse after that (7:86) why the Torah finds it necessary to repeat the words “twelve golden cups.”

According to this, on verses 87 and 88, which state the total of the sacrifices — “All the oxen for the burnt-offering,” and “all the oxen for the sacrifice of peace-offerings,” Rashi should also explain why it is necessary to state these totals — yet he does not. Moreover, the source of Rashi’s explanation on verse 84, 85, and 86, is the Sifri, which does bring an explanation for verses 87 and 88. Why does Rashi quote the Sifri only on verses 84, 85, and 86, and not 87 and 88?

The explanation is as follows: Rashi’s commentary is based on the plain interpretation of the verse. We find in other instances, that when a certain particular or detail is stated at the beginning or end of a passage, it is not necessary to repeat the particular detail, for it is understood that its inclusion in the passage covers the entire passage.

According to this, Rashi cannot explain verses 87 and 88 according to the Sifri’s interpretation. Verse 87 states the total of “all the oxen for the burnt-offering were twelve bullocks, twelve rams, twelve yearling lambs ...” The Sifri explains this is necessary, for in the individual burnt-offering of each prince, it states “one young bullock, one ram, one lamb in its first year, for a burnt-offering.” Since it says “for a burnt-offering” only once, at the end of the verse, it would be possible to think that only the “lamb in its first year” is fit “for a burnt-offering.” That is, the phrase “for a burnt-offering” covers only that which immediately precedes it (the “lamb in its first year”) and not the others “(“young bullock, one ram”). Hence verse 87, which states “all the oxen for the burnt-offering,” is necessary to inform us that all of them — the bullocks, the rams, and the lambs, were fit for burnt-offerings.

The same reasoning applies to verse 88, which tells us the total of “all the oxen for the sacrifice of peace-offerings were twenty four bullocks, sixty rams, sixty he-goats, sixty yearling lambs.” In the individual peace-offering of each prince it states “For the sacrifice of peace-offering: two oxen, five rams, five he-goats, five yearling lambs.” Again, since it states “peace-offering” only once, at the beginning of the verse, it would be possible to think that it refers only to the immediately following category — “two oxen,” and not the others (“five rams, five he-goats, five yearling lambs”). Hence, verse 88, which states all the oxen for the sacrifice of peace-offerings,” is necessary to inform us that all of these were fit for the sacrifice of the peace-offering.

Rashi, however, cannot use this explanation of the Sifri. As explained above, a particular detail included at the beginning or end of a passage covers the entire passage. Hence, when in the individual offerings of each prince it states “one young bullock, one ram, one lamb in its first year, for a burnt-offering,” the phrase “for a burnt-offering” covers the entire verse, and all the particulars in the verse (bullock, ram, lamb) are “for a burnt-offering.” Hence there is no need to learn this from verse 87.

Likewise, when in the individual offering of each prince it states “For the sacrifice of peace-offering: two oxen, five rams, five he-goats, five yearling lambs,” the phrase “for the sacrifice of peace-offering” covers all the subsequent particulars in the passage — “two oxen” and “five rams, five he-goats, five yearling lambs.” Therefore there is no need to learn this from verse 88.

However, all is not clear. True, Rashi cannot interpret these two verses as the Sifri. Yet this does not explain why Rashi does not make some explanation as to why these two verses are necessary. Just as in verses 84, 85, and 86, Rashi explains why they are necessary, so too he should explain why verses 87 and 88 are necessary.

However, the student to whom Rashi addresses his commentary already knows that when we are talking of something that is very precious and dear, the Torah repeats it over and over. For example, Rashi on parshas Chaye Sarah (Bereishis 24:42) explains that the passage concerning Eliezer’s search for a suitable girl for Yitzchok is repeated, for “the conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs is more pleasing before G-d than the Torah of the Sons,” and therefore “the section of Eliezer is repeated in the Torah.” Another example is the repeated countings of the number of the Jewish people, as Rashi explains (Bamidbar 1:1) “because of their love before Him, He numbers them every time.”

Hence, when the Torah counts the number of Jews in each tribe, it goes on to count the total of the whole Jewish people — although a person can himself make such a tally without it being written in the Torah. And Rashi does not have to explain why the Torah repeats the number of Jews by making a total, for a student knows that a precious thing is repeated.

So too in our case. Because of the preciousness of the offerings of the princes, the Torah repeats their numbers by making a grand total (although a person could do it himself). For the same reason Rashi does not have to explain why the offerings of each individual prince is written in the Torah, when it could have simply said that each of the princes offered such and such (since the offerings were identical).

But according to this, another question arises: Why then does Rashi find it necessary to offer an explanation on verses 84,85, and 86 as to why the total of the dishes, etc., is noted? According to the plain interpretation of the verse, the total is noted because of the preciousness of the princes’ offerings (just as Rashi makes no comment on verses 87 and 88).

However, these 3 verses (84-86) differ from the latter two (87 and 88). Rashi comments on these verses not because he wishes to explain why the Torah notes the total (since the reason for this is because of the preciousness of the princes’ offerings), but to explain why extra details are noted besides the totals.

On verse 84, “twelve silver dishes,” Rashi is answering the question why it needs to say they were “silver dishes,” and answers that it tells us “these are the same ones which they donated, and no defect happened to them.”

On verse 85, “A hundred and thirty (was the weight of) each silver dish, and seventy each bowl — all the silver of the vessels was two thousand four hundred Sanctuary shekels,” Rashi is answering the question why the individual weights of each dish and bowl is given, when it has already been recorded in the individual offerings of each prince. Rashi answers “Since it is stated (in the princes’ individual offerings) “one hundred and thirty (shekels was) its weight,” and it does not specify by which shekel, it therefore repeats it here and includes all of them: ‘All the silver of the vessels ... (was) Sanctuary shekels.”’ In addition, Rashi says “to teach you that the vessels of the Sanctuary were exact in their weight

On verse 86, “twelve golden cups,” Rashi is answering the question why it says “golden cups” and not just “cups.” He answers that it teaches us that the cups were not of silver and their weight measured in gold, but that the cups themselves were of gold.

On verses 87 and 88 however, Rashi makes no comment, for no extra details besides the actual totals are recorded.

4. The Zohar on parshas Nasso states: “Rabbi Shimon rejoiced and said: The verse states (Chabakuk 3:2) “O’ L-rd, I have heard the report of You, and I was afraid.” There, (in the time of Chabakuk), it was proper to have fear. As for us, the matter is dependent on love, as it states: ‘You shall love the L-rd your G-d’ and ‘from the L-rd’s love to you’ and ‘I love you, says the L-rd.’”

The verse “O’ L-rd, I have heard the report of You, and I was afraid” is talking of man’s fear of G-d. Hence, when R. Shimon wishes to prove that with us the matter is dependent on love, he should cite verses that talk of man’s love to G-d. Why then does R. Shimon quote also the verses “from the L-rd’s love to you” and “I love you, says the L-rd,” which talk of G-d’s love to Jews. He should have cited only the verse “You shall love the L-rd your G-d” which talks of Jew’s love to G-d (similar to the verse “I was afraid”).

Furthermore, how could R. Shimon say that the concept of “O’ L-rd I have heard the report of You, and I was afraid” applied only to the times of Chabakuk, whereas with us the matter is dependent only on love, when Torah is eternal? Moreover, we say this verse every year in the Haftorah of the second day of Shavuos — indicating that the obligation to fear G-d is in all times. The question becomes more perplexing according to what the Alter Rebbe writes in Tanya that “fear is the root of the 365 prohibitive commandments” and that “without fear, one cannot rise Above on love alone.”

The explanation is as follows. R. Shimon’s statement that “There, it was proper to have fear, as for us, the matter is dependent on love” was said in conjunction to the revelation of the “secrets of secrets ... which were not given even to the upper angels.” In conjunction to this, R. Shimon said “As for us, the matter is dependent on love,” meaning, that “the matter” in which they were then engaged (the revelation of the secrets of secrets) is “dependent” on “love” and not fear. But R. Shimon certainly did not mean to say that the idea of fear is not relevant any more — but only that “the matter” in which they were engaged is dependent on love specifically.

This is similar to the concept of “Bless us, our Father, all of us as one, with the light of Your countenance.” The concept of “Bless us, our Father, in the light of Your countenance” is dependent on the concept of “all of us as one.” So too in our case: The revelation of the secrets of secrets, through the special revelation of “Bless us, our Father, all of us as one,” is dependent upon the concept of “all of us as one” — the idea of Ahavas Yisrael (“the matter is dependent on love”). Since love of a fellow Jew comes about because of love of G-d — for when one loves G-d one also loves the Jews whom G-d loves — R. Shimon cites the verse “You shall love the L-rd your G-d (commandment to Jews to love G-d)” and the verses that talk of G-d’s love to Jews (“from the L-rd’s love of you” and “I love you, says the L-rd”) — for knowledge of G-d’s love to Jews brings one to love of a Jew.