1. Although the service of teshuvah is relevant every day, it is loftier on Shabbos, for “Shabbos,” in Hebrew, has the same letters as “tashev” meaning return (which is the idea of teshuvah). Likewise, although each of the Ten Days of repentance are “days of teshuvah,” the teshuvah on the Shabbos in these Ten Days — Shabbos Shuva — has particular significance. This means that of the many levels of teshuvah, that of the Shabbos of the Ten Days of Repentance is the ultimate.

Moreover, in one respect, the teshuvah of Shabbos Shuva is loftier even than that of Yom Kippur, which, the Rambam writes, is “the time of teshuvah for all ... and is the time of forgiveness and pardon for Israel.” Nevertheless, since Shabbos is the day from which blessings for the following six weekdays are drawn, it follows that Shabbos Shuva, from which Yom Kippur is blessed, has a certain distinction that not even Yom Kippur possesses. That distinction is that Shabbos is the concept of ta’anug — delight, as stated: “You shall call Shabbos ‘delight’.” And although it is explained in Chassidus that on Yom Kippur, which is the “Shabbos of Shabbosim,” the inner part of ta’anug is revealed, nevertheless, in niglah, the exoteric aspect of Torah, ta’anug is found only on Shabbos and not on Yom Kippur.

This does not mean there is a contradiction between the exoteric and the esoteric aspects of Torah. They are compared to a body (exoteric) and soul (esoteric); and just as a person is body and soul together, united, so too the body and soul of Torah the exoteric and esoteric — are one entity — “one Torah.” Since they are one entity, it is obvious that there can be no contradiction between them.

Although there are a different set of principles for learning the exoteric and the esoteric, it does not mean the two disciplines are contradictory, for we find that in the exoteric itself there are different sets of principles and methods of study. For example, we cannot derive laws regarding “issur” (forbidden things) from laws concerning monetary matters, for they are guided by different principles — even though both are part of the exoteric. Likewise, there are differences in modes of study of aggadah and halachah. Thus, the differences between study of the exoteric and esoteric do not detract from their being “one Torah.”

Precisely because it is “one Torah” we find that legal decisions in halachah are made based on aggadah and even on the Zohar, the esoteric part of Torah. That is, the words of the Zohar are relevant to actual conduct of all Jews — both those who study the exoteric and those who study the esoteric. Every Jew must study both the exoteric and the esoteric: the difference is in which area their principal interest lies. Some study the exoteric principally, and others the esoteric. Both categories however must study both disciplines.

A parallel to this is the division of Jews into those who study Torah — Yissacher; and those who do good deeds — Zevulun. This is only in regard to one’s principal area of service; but those who principally study Torah must also give tzedakah, and those who principally do good deeds must also have fixed times of study. Likewise, since the exoteric and the esoteric are “one Torah,” there can be no contradiction between them.

In our case, concerning the distinction of Shabbos Shuva over Yom Kippur: Although in the exoteric it seems that the loftiest level of teshuvah is on Yom Kippur (as seen from the above quoted ruling of the Rambam), it can be inferred from the Zohar which states that all the days of the week are blessed from the preceding Shabbos, that Shabbos Shuva possesses a distinction that even Yom Kippur does not have — since Yom Kippur itself is blessed from Shabbos Shuva.

This distinction is emphasized also in the exoteric, where the concept of ta’anug is found only on Shabbos and not on Yom Kippur. And although Chassidus explains that on Yom Kippur the inner part of ta’anug is revealed, there cannot, as explained above, be a contradiction between the exoteric and the esoteric. That is, there cannot be a contradiction between the exoteric and the esoteric as to which is loftier — Yom Kippur or Shabbos Shuva. Nevertheless, without going into the reconciliation of the two, since now it is Shabbos Shuva, we will explain the greatness of Shabbos Shuva specifically (compared even to Yom Kippur).

2. The greatness of teshuvah on Shabbos Shuva compared to Yom Kippur is analogous to the difference between Yom Kippur and Purim. In one respect Purim is loftier than Yom Kippur, for the service of the latter is related to spiritual matters only. On Yom Kippur Jews are above physical things, to the extent that they are compared to angels (for they do not eat or drink etc.). The service of Purim however is associated specifically with eating and drinking, to the extent that “a person is obligated to get intoxicated on Purim.” Thus, while on Yom Kippur a Jew is on a level above the physical, on Purim he draws down all the revelations of Yom Kippur into and through physical matters.

So too in the case of Shabbos Shuva: On Yom Kippur, a Jew does teshuvah while he is on a level above physical matters, when he is similar to an angel. On Shabbos Shuva, his teshuvah permeates also a Jew’s physical matters, for on Shabbos it is a mitzvah to have delight in fat meat and old wine. The greatness of teshuvah on Shabbos Shuva compared to that of Yom Kippur then, is that it affects and permeates even physical matters.

The above must be expressed in man’s spiritual service: Since Torah has revealed the lofty distinction of Shabbos Shuva, every Jew’s service must be consonant with that distinction. Although this distinction is connected to the idea of Shabbos, which is “sanctified of itself,” nevertheless, Jews, through their service, add to the greatness of Shabbos. Moreover, the eating on Shabbos is a result of one’s toil before Shabbos, and the Alter Rebbe explains that the “higher” teshuvah of Shabbos is effected through the preparatory “lower” teshuvah. Thus, although we are talking of the greatness of Shabbos Shuva, (which is sanctified of itself) man’s service is still relevant in this area.

“Teshuvah” means that a Jew returns to G-d. When a Jew is completely immersed in spiritual things, it is not hard to be in a state of teshuvah. The loftiness of teshuvah is when a person is occupied in physical things — eating, business, etc. — and still is in a state of teshuvah, return to G-d. The lesson we learn from this for a person’s service the entire year is that teshuvah is not only when one studies Torah and performs mitzvos — for of course one is then in a state of returning, coming closer to G-d. Teshuvah must permeate one’s whole existence, to the extent that even when engaged in physical activities one is in a state of teshuvah — similar to the teshuvah of Shabbos Shuva which permeates one’s physical matters, the delight in fat meat and old wine.

Since this lesson is learned from Shabbos Shuva, it follows that everything connected to it must be in the mode of delight (since Shabbos is the concept of delight). And although normally teshuvah is done through awe and fear, true teshuvah is “higher” teshuvah, which is done with great joy and delight.

In practical terms: When a Jew ponders on the greatness of Shabbos Shuva, he is inspired to be in a state of teshuvah also when engaged in physical matters. Even when he is of the category of Zevulun, engaged in worldly pursuits, his dealings with the world is such that “In all your ways you shall know Him.” Hence, even then he is in a state of teshuvah — return to G-d. A story is told of R. Binyamin Kletzker, one of the greatest Chassidim of the Alter Rebbe, who, when once making his accounts, wrote as the total “There is none else aside from Him.” His business dealings were so permeated with the idea of G-dliness, that when he came to write the sum total of his accounts, he wrote simply that the final balance is “There is none else aside from Him!”

On the other hand, there is also a lesson to be derived from the service of teshuvah on Yom Kippur. One may think teshuvah is necessary only when dealing with physical matters, things which are not sanctified — for then extra caution is necessary to be in a state of return to G-d. Whereas when one is learning Torah and performing mitzvos, since one is then bonded to G-d, there is no necessity to emphasize teshuvah. Yom Kippur, when Jews are as angels, having no connection with physical matters, teaches us that teshuvah is still heavily emphasized then.

But, the lesson relevant to most Jews comes from Shabbos Shuva. Most Jews are in the category of Zevulun, and therefore it is necessary to stress the importance of teshuvah in such an area. Moreover, nowadays, even the minority of Jews who are primarily engaged in Torah study are not in the category of “Torah is their sole occupation” — for there are times when they are engaged in worldly matters. Hence the lesson from Shabbos Shuva applies also to them.

The above is relevant to one’s own service, and also the work of encouraging another. When talking to another Jew about the service of teshuvah, one must talk to him of the loftiest levels (that of Shabbos Shuva) irregardless of his personal standing. For although a Jew may temporarily be on a low spiritual level, it is not his true essence, and in reality the service of teshuvah is relevant to him too. Indeed, teshuvah means return — to one’s true self. Thus, when talking of teshuvah, one should stress the positive, the greatness of every Jew; and certainly not the reverse, to frighten a Jew with threats of dire punishment, etc.

In practical terms, one must increase in all efforts of spreading Torah, amidst Ahavas Yisroel and unity of all Jews. All this should be done with joy and delight, similar to the service of teshuvah on Shabbos Shuva — through which we speedily merit the ultimate in the concept of Shabbos: “the day which is all Shabbos and rest for life everlasting.”

3. Chapter 32, verse 44 of parshas Ha’azinu states: “Moshe came and spoke all the words of this song in the ears of the people, he and Hoshea ben Nun.” Rashi, on the words “He and Hoshea ben Nun,” comments: “It was the Shabbos of two pairs (i.e. the Shabbos of transmission of authority); authority was taken from the one (Moshe) and was given to the other (Yehoshua). Moshe set up a ‘meturgeman’ (‘interpreter,’ person who elaborated and transmitted the words of the leader to the people) for Yehoshua so that he (Yehoshua) should expound (the Torah) during his (Moshe’s) life, so that the Israelites should not say ‘During the life of your teacher you were not able to lift your head! And why does it (Scripture) call him here Hoshea (when his name had already been changed to Yehoshua)? To inform that he did not become overbearing, for although greatness was given to him, he humbled himself as previously.

The source for Rashi’s comment is from our Sages: The first part (“It was the Shabbos of two pairs” etc.) is from the Talmud Sotah (13b); the second part (“And why does it call him here Hoshea”) is from the Sifri. Since Rashi quotes these interpretations without stating they come from our Sages, it means they are the plain interpretation of the verse (and not Aggadic in nature).

But all is not clear: The verse states only “he and Hoshea ben Nun.” >From where, in the plain interpretation, can all the details brought by Rashi be deduced? For example, that it was “The Shabbos of two pairs” which means 4 people; or that “Moshe set us a meturgeman for Yehoshua so that he should expound during his (Moshe’s) life;” and that the reason for this was so “that the Israelites should not say ‘During the life of your teacher you were not able to lift your head’?” None of these seem to be dictated by the plain interpretation.

A further question: Rashi continues to say “And why does it call him here Hoshea? To inform that he did not become overbearing, for although greatness was given to him, he humbled himself as previously.” Seemingly, this has no relation to the first part of Rashi’s comment (that it was “The Shabbos of two pairs etc.”), but is a completely different subject — the reason why the verse states “Hoshea” and not “Yehoshua.” That is, Hoshea’s name had been changed to Yehoshua by Moshe approximately 40 years earlier, when Moshe sent Yehoshua as one of the spies. Why then all of a sudden, 40 years later, do we find him being called “Hoshea” again? Hence Rashi answers that it teaches us he remained humble. And this does not seem to have any relationship to the first part of Rashi’s comment, for it is a perfectly valid point even without Rashi’s comment, concerning the “two pairs.” Why then does Rashi include it as a continuation of the beginning of his interpretation; and to the extent that he joins the two together by adding the word “and” — “And why does it call him here Hoshea?”

In addition, a question arises from a past interpretation of Rashi’s. In the beginning of parshas Vayeilech (30:2) Moshe says “I cannot any more go out and come in,” on which Rashi comments “What is the meaning of ‘I cannot?’ I am not permitted, for authority has been taken from me and has been given to Yehoshua.” Since Rashi mentions the transfer of authority in parshas Vayeilech, he should have continued to elaborate on that theme there — that “It was the Shabbos of two pairs ... that Moshe set up a meturgeman for Yehoshua etc.” Why does Rashi wait to tell us all these details until we come to our parshah, Ha’azinu?

Moreover, the Talmud Sotah (Rashi’s source) brings the interpretation that “It was the Shabbos of two pairs” on a verse in parshas Vayeilech (31:14): “Moshe and Yehoshua went and they stood in the Ohel Moed.” Yet Rashi makes absolutely no comment on this verse and instead states this interpretation on our verse in parshas Ha’azinu.

The explanation of all the above:

Rashi makes the comment he does on our verse because of a problem inherent in the very verse itself. Why does Scripture say “Moshe came and spoke all the words of this song in the ears of the people, he and Hoshea ben Nun?” Why the emphasis on “Hoshea ben Nun?” We do not find that Yehoshua did anything special on this occasion. Nor can it be that Scripture merely wishes to inform us that Yehoshua was present when Moshe “spoke all the words of this song in the ears of the people — for all Israel was present then, and certainly Yehoshua, who was continuously at Moshe’s side, was there. In parshas Vayeilech, where it states “Moshe went and stood in the Ohel Moed,” Scripture states explicitly that G-d commanded Moshe to “call Yehoshua;” and later, it records that “He (Moshe) commanded Yehoshua ben Nun, and said: Be strong and of good courage, for you shall bring the children of Israel to the land.” In other words, Scripture itself tells us why it mentions that “Moshe and Yehoshua went and stood in the Ohel Moed.” But in our case, there is nothing recorded concerning anything special to be done with Yehoshua, and therefore apparently no reason for the emphasis on “he and Hoshea ben Nun.”

Thus we must conclude that the explanation of this puzzle lies in this verse itself: It states “Moshe came and spoke all the words of this song in the ears of the people, he and Hoshea ben Nun.” The plain interpretation must be that “he and Hoshea ben Nun” refers to the first part of the verse — “spoke all the words of this song.” That is, both Moshe and Yehoshua spoke.

That both Moshe and Yehoshua spoke (“he and Hoshea ben Nun”) indicates that they spoke in the same manner. This is the meaning of Rashi’s words: “It was the Shabbos of two pairs; authority was taken from the one and was given to the other. Moshe set up a meturgeman for Yehoshua so that he should expound during his (Moshe’s) life.” We know that when Moshe spoke to the Jews, he had a “meturgeman,” as stated (Shemos 7:1) “Aharon your brother will be your navi,” which Rashi explains to mean “your meturgeman.” Since, as explained previously, Moshe and Yehoshua were equal in the manner of speaking in the ears of the people, it follows that just as Moshe had a “meturgeman,” so did Yehoshua. That is why Rashi says “It was the Shabbos of two pairs,” for there were four people involved: Moshe and his meturgeman, and Yehoshua and his meturgeman.

Now we can understand why Rashi does not write all these details in the beginning of parshas Vayeilech, although he explains there that “authority has been taken from me and has been given to Yehoshua.” It states in the beginning of parshas Vayeilech that “I cannot any longer go out and come in; and the L-rd has said to me ‘You shall not pass this Jordan.” Rashi comments on the words “The L-rd has said to me” that This is the meaning of ‘I cannot any longer go out and come in,’ because ‘the L-rd has said to me.’” And the verse explicitly tells us what it was that the L-rd said to Moshe — “You shall not pass this Jordan.” It follows then that what Moshe said he can not any longer go out and come in (“for authority has been taken from me and has been given to Yehoshua”) was only in regard to leading the Jews after they had passed the Jordan, and not to Moshe’s conduct with the Jews (speaking to them) during his life. Hence Rashi cannot on this verse explain that “Moshe set up a meturgeman for Yehoshua so that he should expound during his life,” for it is the opposite of the verse’s meaning.

Our verse in parshas Ha’azinu then comes and tells us a new thing: That the idea of “authority was taken from the one and given to the other” applies also to Yehoshua expounding during Moshe’s life — “Moshe came and spoke ... he and Hoshea ben Nun.”

Likewise, Rashi cannot make this comment (as the Talmud does) on the verse “Moshe and Yehoshua went and stood in the Ohel Moed,” for in the plain interpretation, there is no indication in this verse that Yehoshua should expound during Moshe’s life.

Rashi then continues to explain why Yehoshua had to expound during Moshe’s life. If, as we have learned, the transfer of authority over the Jews was only after the Jews passed the Jordan, why did Yehoshua have to expound during Moshe’s life? Rashi answers this by saying “So that the Israelites should not say ‘During the life of your teacher you were not able to lift your head.’” And this is connected with leading the people after passing the Jordan: For Yehoshua to command the respect and authority of the Jews necessary to lead them after passing the Jordan, he had to expound during Moshe’s lifetime, to avoid the criticism of “During the life of your teacher you were not able to lift your head.”

However, the question then arises: “Why does it call him here Hoshea?” Moshe changed Hoshea’s name to Yehoshua, and the name “Yehoshua” denotes greatness, meaning “G-d will save you from the counsel of the spies” — i.e. he was given special powers not to fall into the sin of the spies. Now our verse stresses the greatness of Yehoshua — that he was to be the leader after Moshe, to the extent that he expounded during Moshe’s life. why then specifically here is he called “Hoshea?” Surely here of all places he should be called “Yehoshua,” alluding to the greatness he now was experiencing. Thus Rashi answers: “To inform that he did not become overbearing, for although greatness was given to him, he humbled himself as previously.”