1. The festival of liberation of Yud-Bais Tammuz has this year the added distinction of falling out on Shabbos — and a Shabbos on which we read two parshahs. Although the two parshahs are joined together, with seven people being called up and one Haftorah read, as on a regular Shabbos, nevertheless, the increase in the quantity of verses read effects an increase in the quality.

We find other instances where quality effects a change in quality: The book of Vayikra is termed “lion,” because it contains “many halachos.” Although the four other books of the Torah also contain halachos, nevertheless, because Vayikra has many, it effects also the quality of the book itself, and is therefore given a special term — “lion.” So too in our case: Since this Shabbos, due to the combination of parshahs, contains many verses, it affects also its quality. Hence the distinction of Yud-Bais Tammuz this year falling on a Shabbos on which two parshahs are read is lofty indeed.

All matters of Torah must ultimately come to fruition in actual deed. The concept of Yud-Bais Tammuz, and also the extra distinction accruing from it being on Shabbos this year, must also express itself in deed. This is emphasized in the Ma’amar the previous Rebbe sent for the first celebration of Yud-Bais Tammuz, where he stresses that Torah study must eventuate in deed. He further emphasizes in that Ma’amar that Torah study must be in the manner of tzedakah and deeds of loving kindness, meaning we must learn Torah with a fellow Jew — and that publicly, not just in the company of a few, but with ten, the ultimate in “publicly.”

In tzedakah itself, the idea of quantity is greatly emphasized. The concept of tzedakah is, as our Sages say, that “You have given life to the soul of the poor person.” Understandably then, the more tzedakah given to the poor person, the greater the life you have given.

So too with the spiritual aspect of the mitzvah of tzedakah: Tzedakah is “equal to all the mitzvos” and “brings closer the redemption.” Tanya explains the greatness of tzedakah is because the purpose of all mitzvos “is solely to elevate the vital soul to G-d ... and there is no mitzvah in which the vital soul is so enclothed as in the mitzvah of tzedakah ... when a person gives from the labor of his hands; for the strength of the vital soul is invested in his work or other business in which he earns these moneys; and when he gives it to tzedakah, all his vital soul is raised to G-d.... With one act of tzedakah much of his vital soul is elevated, which he could not elevate ... with many other mitzvos.”

Since the inner meaning and purpose of the mitzvah of tzedakah is to elevate the vital soul and one’s environment, it follows that when one increases in the amount of tzedakah given, he elevates more powers and a greater part of his world. In other words, although the mitzvah of tzedakah must be fulfilled with the appropriate life and zeal etc., and not just automatically, the important thing is how much one gives.

Returning to our main topic, the remembrance of Yud-Bais Tammuz each year has the purpose of effecting an increase in those areas of work demanded by the previous Rebbe — starting with those things mentioned in the letter written by the previous Rebbe for the first celebration of Yud-Bais Tammuz, which in general is the idea of spreading Judaism and Chassidus.

In the words of the previous Rebbe: “All of you stand ready to receive the blessings of the L-rd — first and foremost blessings for success in spreading Torah and Chassidus, and all good efforts associated with doing good deeds for another. Thereby one merits a good deed from G-d in relation to bringing the redemption to all Israel. Then all Jews go out from exile — “the people in its entirety,” “with our youth and our elders, our sons and our daughters,” “a great congregation shall return here.” This will be in the manner of “their silver and their gold with them”: not just physical gold and silver, but principally the spiritual belongings of Jews, the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos — “the Torah in its entirety.” Through this we merit “the land in its entirety,” for with Mashiach’s coming not only will we possess all the land in its entirety, — the land of the seven peoples — but also the land of the ten peoples, for “the L-rd your G-d will broaden your borders.”

2. The distinction conferred upon Yud-Bais Tammuz by Shabbos must be comprehensible to all Jews, even the most unlettered. The previous Rebbe writes that Yud-Bais Tammuz is relevant to all Jews, even those “who are Yisrael only in name” — that is, those Jews who think “Yisrael” is not their true name, but just a “nickname.”

Parenthetically, it is quite amazing that a person can change his name, despite the name given to him at birth being a lofty thing. The Baal Shem Tov explains that “the name by which a person is called in the Holy tongue is the vessel by which the person receives his vitality.” A person’s name is connected with the root of his soul; and the AriZal writes that when parents give names to their children, “these names are not by chance or by the will of the parents, but G-d gives wisdom, knowledge and understanding into the hearts of his father and mother to give him the name which is of the root of the son’s soul. Because of this, the person is extremely rooted in his name.” Consonant with this, the Tzemach Tzedek states that the name of a child must be given specifically by the parents (others can only suggest), for it is the parents who have the merit to be able to choose the name compatible to the root of their son’s soul.

We see then that a person’s name, connected as it is with his soul’s root, and through which the vitality of the soul is transmitted to the body, is a very lofty thing indeed. Yet simultaneously, a person can change his name, through his own choice. We find in Shulchan Aruch that through a change in name extra vitality is drawn down from above for long years, for healing, etc.

This seems to be a paradox: on the one hand we say the name given to a person is connected with his soul’s root, and, as the previous Rebbe explains, the letters of the name are the “conduit” for the flow of vitality of the soul and body. On the other hand when a person decides to change his name, his vitality flows through the “conduit” of the letters of the new name!

The reason for this is that when a person decides to change his name, it is a change not just “below” in this world, but also Above — and therefore his vitality now flows through his new name.

To return to our main topic: Consonant with the previous Rebbe’s words that the redemption of Yud-Bais Tammuz is relevant to all Jews, even those who are Jews only in name, the distinction of this year’s Yud-Bais Tammuz falling out on Shabbos must be understood by each and every Jew.

The concept and very meaning of the word of Shabbos is rest. Conduct on Shabbos in general is in the manner of “ta’anug” — delight, when the body delights in physical things, good food, rest, etc. The necessity of having bodily delights on Shabbos is more readily grasped by a simple person; whereas an intellectual, whose interest and delight lies in loftier things, must work to ensure that also physical delight penetrates his Shabbos. For since an intellectual’s delight is in intellectual pursuits, physical delights are a lowering of his standards. Therefore, he may think that on Shabbos he will take delight only in Torah study — for how can he utilize the precious nature of the holy Shabbos for mere physical things such as sleeping?! Hence for an intellectual to take delight in physical things on Shabbos requires great effort on his part. Knowing that he is commanded to do so, he nullifies his own preferences, and takes delight in physical things. That is, the delight of Shabbos is so lofty that it penetrates even physical things such as bodily delights.

It follows then that when Yud-Bais Tammuz falls on Shabbos, all matters connected with Yud-Bais Tammuz are done in the manner of delight. In general, the liberation historically was in two ways:

1) Some parts required intense toil,

2) others were done in the manner of the service of Shabbos — delight.

It follows that the lesson from the liberation can also be done in either of these two ways. When Yud-Bais Tammuz falls on Shabbos however, the general service of Yud-Bais Tammuz (spreading Judaism and Chassidus) must be with delight.

Just as the delight on Shabbos permeates even bodily matter, so too the service of Yud-Bais Tammuz when it falls on Shabbos: the delight in the service of disseminating Judaism and Chassidus penetrates even to the body so that the physical body delights in spreading Judaism and Chassidus.

This is greater than that recorded in Chassidus about R. Nochum of Tchernobil, who became physically heavy from answering “Amen, may His Name be exalted R. Nochum, in answering “Amen, may had spiritual delight, which then affected his physical body. In our case, the spiritual delight (in spreading Judaism and Chassidus) penetrates to the body, to the extent that the body itself delights in this service.

This concept too must be comprehensible to a simple person. We see by experience that when a person delights in a particular service to the extent of his body having delight, the service is performed in a completely different manner — without any limits. Hence we can understand the greatness of spiritual delight penetrating the body to the extent of it too delighting in this service — for then the service is performed in a much loftier fashion.

This is similar to that which the Rambam writes concerning the physical rewards promised by Torah for observance of Torah and mitzvos. He writes that at the beginning of one’s service it is relevant to say that one’s service is to receive physical reward, since he is still on the level when only the physical is important. So too in our case: For service to be proper, it must also permeate the physical body, to the extent that it itself delights in this service.

We find an example of this in the following story: Once, on Motzoei Rosh Hashanah, the Rebbe Rashab commanded one of his Chassidim to travel to the capital city on a certain mission. Before he left, the Rebbe opened the drawer of his desk and took out a sum of money to cover the travel expenses. Now this Chassid was very wealthy and was used to giving large sums of money to the Rebbe Rashab to be used for tzedakah. He was therefore surprised that the Rebbe gave him traveling expenses, when it was such an insignificant sum compared to that which he was used to giving to the Rebbe Rashab. This Chossid was certainly prepared to pay all expenses out of his personal funds, especially when it was for carrying out a special mission of the Rebbe Rashab.

When the Chossid asked the Rebbe Rashab for the reason for his giving him traveling expenses, the Rebbe answered that his donations to tzedakah were irrelevant to these traveling expenses. Since it was a mission on behalf of the community, the funds to cover the expenses should be from communal funds. Moreover, added the Rebbe, by giving him these funds to cover expenses, it will eliminate the possibility that the Yetzer Horah, the Evil Inclination will, (at a further time) try to convince the Chossid not to do something if it means outlaying money — since the Yetzer sees that the Chossid is being given the funds.

In other words, so that the Yetzer will not interfere in the fulfillment of one’s mission, one needs something to “convince” the Yetzer to also go along — as in the funds given in the above story. So too in our case: for one’s service to be proper, one needs to “recruit” the body also, by ensuring that one’s body also delights in this service. Then the service is performed on a loftier level, beyond all limits.

This then is the special distinction of Yud-Bais Tammuz falling on Shabbos: The general service of disseminating Judaism and Chassidus is done with delight, to the extent of the physical body delighting in this service. This is especially so when each person ponders on the great merit he has to fulfill the mission of the previous Rebbe, the leader of our generation, such that “the envoy of a person is as the person” — the knowledge of which adds joy and delight to the fulfillment of the mission.

When this service is done with delight, life and zeal, transcending all limits, it adds zeal to the general redemption of all Jews — the redemption comes in the manner of transcending all limits, with G-d “hastening” it.

3. In this week’s parshah, we learn of Balak, the king of Moav, sending emissaries to Bilaam to request him to curse the Jewish people. After agreeing to go, Scripture states (Bamidbar 22:21) “Bilaam rose up in the morning, he saddled his donkey, and went with the princes of Moav.” Quoting the words “He saddled his donkey,” Rashi comments that “From here we learn that hatred causes disregard of proper conduct (appropriate to one’s standards), for he saddled it by himself (instead of letting his servants do so). The Holy One blessed be He said: Wicked one, Avraham. their father has already preceded you, as it is stated (Bereishis 22:3) “Avraham arose early in the morning and saddled his donkey (to fulfill G-d’s command of going to Mt. Moriah to sacrifice his son, Yitzchok).”

Rashi makes the comment that “From here we learn that hatred causes disregard of proper conduct, for he saddled it by himself” to explain some unanswered questions raised by this verse.

1) Why does Scripture find it necessary to even tell us that he saddled his donkey, and

2) why indeed did Bilaam, a distinguished person, saddle it by himself, and not his servants?

Therefore Rashi explains that he did so because “hatred causes disregard of proper conduct” i.e. because of Bilaam’s hatred of the Jewish people, he disregarded proper conduct befitting his position, and rushed to do it himself. Scripture wishes thereby to teach us how careful one must be not to hate.

However, all is not clear:

1) Why does Rashi continue to say: “The Holy One blessed be He said: Wicked one, Avraham. their father has already preceded you ...” How does this help clarify the plain meaning of the verse — which is Rashi’s purpose in writing his commentary?

This is particularly perplexing when we see that Rashi, on the verse in parshas Vayeira “Avraham arose early in the morning and he saddled his donkey” comments “He saddled — he himself, and did not command one of his servants to do so, for love (of doing G-d’s command) causes disregard of proper conduct.” We see that on this verse Rashi does not add that Bilaam. also did the same (out of hatred). why then on our verse concerning Bilaam. does Rashi add that we find Avraham did the same?

2) It seems from Rashi’s comment “Wicked one, Avraham their father has already preceded you” that if not for Avraham’s action, it is possible that Bilaam’s action of saddling his donkey could have caused G-d to agree to Bilaam’s desire (to harm the Jews). And therefore Rashi must stress that it is only because Avraham preceded Bilaam, that Bilaam’s action was disregarded. How can we say that an evil action (hatred) could cause G-d to fulfill Bilaam’s desire?!

3) Why does Rashi quote the words “Avraham arose early in the morning”? Had he omitted this, and just said “Avraham their father has already preceded you, as it is stated ‘and he saddled his donkey,’ we could clearly understand the quoted verse refers to Avraham.

We cannot say Rashi adds these words to emphasize that not only did Avraham precede Bilaam in time, but Avraham arose early in the morning to do so — unlike Bilaam, of whom it is stated only “Bilaam rose up in the morning.” Had this been Rashi’s intention, he should have quoted the words “Bilaam. rose up in the morning” in addition to “he saddled his donkey” as the part of the verse an which he is commenting.

Thus the question remains:

1) Why does Rashi include the words “Avraham arose early in the morning;”

2) on the other hand, why doesn’t Rashi quote the words “Bilaam. rose up in the morning” thereby emphasizing the difference between Avraham (who arose early) and Bilaam (who did not);

3) What indeed is the reason for the difference between Bilaam and Avraham?

The following verse (22:22) states: “He (Bilaam) was riding upon his donkey, and his two servants were with him.” We see from this that Bilaam saddled his own donkey not because he had no one else to do so, for he had “two servants with him.” Likewise, Avraham also had servants who could have saddled his donkey, as stated specifically in parshas Vayeira: “he took his two servants with him.”

However, this verse too has its difficulties. Rashi comments on the words “his two servants were with him,” that “From here we learn that a distinguished man who goes forth on a journey should take two men with him to serve him, and these in turn serve one another.” In the case of Avraham, Rashi comments that he took two servants “for a distinguished man is not permitted to go forth on a journey without two people; for if one will need to ease himself and he goes aside (for this purpose), the second will remain with him (the distinguished man).”

Why, in our case in parshas Balak, does it need to teach us that a distinguished person should take along two people, when we have already learned this in parshas Vayeira (in regards to Avraham). On the other hand, why does Rashi here say the reason is “to serve him, and these in turn serve one another,” when in parshas Vayeira he explains the reason differently — so that a distinguished man will never be left alone?

The explanation of all the above is as follows: The student learning Scripture to whom Rashi addresses his commentary knows that if something in the world is evil, its counterpart in sanctity certainly exists. For since G-d created everything in the world, He certainly first created a thing as it exists in the realm of holiness — and only afterwards its counterpart in evil. Hence, when a student learns the verse concerning Bilaam that “he saddled his donkey,” and Rashi explains that “From here we learn that hatred causes disregard of proper conduct,” he knows that the concept of disregarding proper conduct must also exist (and indeed primarily) in the realm of holiness — and only afterwards is it possible to exist in evil.

Furthermore, a student sees from daily personal experience that his desire for things, even wrong things, can bring him to wrong conduct. This is the result of “hatred” to holy things. Likewise, because of hatred for another, a person can sometimes do things he would otherwise never do. Hence, Bilaam’s action of saddling his donkey because “hatred causes disregard of proper conduct” reminds G-d that with Jews also there can sometimes be “hatred which causes disregard of proper conduct.” And this can cause an unfavorable decree to be pronounced against Jews, G-d forbid.

Therefore, Rashi, to explain where we find this concept in the realm of sanctity, and how it is possible to prevent an unfavorable decree because of “hatred,” continues to say that “the Holy One blessed be He says: Wicked one, Avraham their father has already preceded you, as it is stated “Avraham arose early in the morning and saddled his donkey.” Even prior to the concept of disregarding proper conduct in the case of Bilaam (in the realm of evil), we find it in the realm of sanctity, in the case of Avraham, as Rashi states there: “He did not command one of his servants (to saddle his donkey) for love causes disregard of proper conduct.”

Rashi specifically writes that “Avraham their father has already preceded you,” indicating that since Avraham is the “father” of all Jews, his conduct (“love causes disregard of proper conduct”) is the example for and becomes Jews’ conduct. This eliminates the possibility of an evil decree against Jews by G-d being reminded — through Bilaam. I s conduct — that by Jews also there is the concept of “hatred causes disregard of proper conduct,” for the opposite is true: the principal conduct of Jews is as Avraham’s their father — “love (of G-d) causes disregard of proper conduct.”

Rashi then continues to say: “as it is stated: “Avraham arose early in the morning and saddled his donkey.” Not only did “Avraham. their father precede you,” but “he arose early in the morning.” This shows the greatness of Avraham’s conduct, and as a result, Jew’s conduct, in the concept of “love causes disregard of proper conduct.”

Rashi does not mention that this was contrary to Bilaam’s conduct (as explained above, he does not quote that Bilaam, only “rose up” whereas Avraham “arose early”) for it is possible that Bilaam did not get up early for a very simple reason. Bilaam was to be accompanied on his journey by the princes of Moav, as stated “he went with the princes of Moav.” There would therefore be no use in his getting up early, when he would in any case have to wait until the “princes of Moav” got up!

In the case of Avraham however, who went with his two servants, who, Rashi says, were Yishmael (his son) and Eliezer (his personal servant), he could go whenever he wished, for they certainly would have arisen when Avraham wished.

Now we can understand the differences in Rashi’s explanation on the reason for taking servants with on a journey. Bilaam traveled with the princes of Moav, and it is therefore impossible to say that he took two servants with him so that he shouldn’t remain alone when one of them would go to ease himself (as Rashi explains in the case of Avraham). Since he was together with the princes of Moav any way, he would never be alone.

Thus we must say that from Bilaam’s case we learn a new thing — “From here we learn that a distinguished man who goes forth on a journey should take two men with him to serve him, and these in turn serve one another.” That is, Avraham’s case teaches us that a distinguished person should never be alone and therefore needs two people; Bilaam’s case teaches us a distinguished man needs two people to help him (“serve him”). And since the “princes of Moav” were themselves distinguished, they did not serve Bilaam — and therefore he needed to take along two servants.

That is why Rashi, in the case of Avraham, says ‘$a distinguished person is not permitted to go forth on a journey without two people,” whereas in the case of Bilaam he just says “a distinguished man who goes forth on a journey should take with him two people.” Since in the case of Avraham the reason for the two people is so that the distinguished person should never be alone — a question of security — Rashi says he is not permitted to go without two people. In the case of Bilaam, it is not a question of security (since he had the princes of Moav with him in any case) but merely good advice to a “distinguished man” that when going on a journey to take “two men with him to serve him.”