002 —מאמרים מלוקט חלק ד - ש"פ קרח, ג' תמוז ה'תשכ"ד

B"H, Shabbos Parshas Korach, 3 Tammuz 5724.

Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu Ka'asher Hayah Im Avoseinu Al Ya'azveinu Ve'al Yitoshenu.

This verse is well known from the sicha of the Baal HaGeulah, who said on 3 Tammuz 5687^[2]: "Mir betten ba Hashem Yisborach, Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu Ka'asher Hayah Im Avoseinu Al Ya'azveinu Ve'al Yitoshenu, Hashem zol zein mit unz, un vet zein mit unz ka'asher hayah im avoseinu." (We ask of Hashem that He be with us, and He will be with us as He was with our forefathers.) We need to understand: a request and a promise are different (and seemingly opposite) concepts, yet we say, "Mir betten ba Hashem… zol zein mit unz un vet zein mit unz"—the request is not only that He should be with us, but also that He will be with us. Even though the word "yehi" is both a request and a promise^[3], these are different meanings, yet in the sicha both are included together.

The sicha continues: this that Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu Ka'asher Hayah Im Avoseinu ("yehi" as both request and promise) applies even though we are not like our forefathers. It can be said that the source for this explanation is in the Midrash^[4]: Shlomo says before the Holy One, blessed be He, a king who hires workers and they do their work well and he pays them—what praise is there for the king? He is praised when he hires bad workers^[5] who do not do their work, yet he pays them; this is a great kindness, as it says, "Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu Ka'asher Hayah Im Avoseinu." The sicha explains that the reason we cannot compare ourselves to our forefathers is because they were truly self-sacrificing for Torah and mitzvos. Yet, the sicha was said in connection with his journey to exile in Kostroma, which (and the prior imprisonment) was due to actual mesirus nefesh for Torah and mitzvos [and even the saying of this sicha was itself an act of mesirus nefesh], and still he says we are not like our forefathers who had actual mesirus nefesh.

Seemingly, one could say that since the Baal HaGeulah's request, Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu, was (not only for himself but also) for all Jews, including even those who are only called by the name "Yisrael"^[6], therefore he said that we are not like our forefathers who had actual mesirus nefesh. But this explanation is insufficient, because in the phrase "mir zaynen doch nit glaykh tzu avoseinu" (we are not like our forefathers), he included himself. And it cannot be said that including himself among those who lack actual mesirus nefesh was just humility, because humility only applies to something comparable.

2) In addition to the nuances in the sicha, we need to explain the wording of the verse itself: Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu. Seemingly, after saying "Hashem Elokeinu"—He is our G‑d, especially as explained in Chassidus^[7] that "Elokeinu" means "our strength and our life-force"—why is there a need to request that He be with us? Also, we need to understand the phrase "Imanu… Im Avoseinu" (with us… with our forefathers), since the word "im" (with) implies something secondary to the main thing [like "the heirs of the husband with the heirs of the father"^[8], where the heirs of the husband are secondary to the heirs of the father^[9]], yet we say "Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu… Im Avoseinu," implying that Hashem Elokeinu is, so to speak, secondary to us and our forefathers.

This can be explained based on the well-known idea^[10] that the reason yiras Shamayim (fear of Heaven) is called a "treasure"^[11] is because, just as the king's treasure cannot be made by the king alone but must be gathered from others, so too yirah (the treasure of the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He) is not in Heaven's hands, as our Sages say^[12]: "Everything is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven."

Furthermore, the reason the term "treasure" is used specifically for yirah, even though this concept (that Hashem, so to speak, needs the person) applies to all mitzvos, is because for mitzvos to be fulfilled properly, it must be through love of Hashem or fear of Hashem^[13]. One of the differences between love and fear is^[14] that love of Hashem comes through a revelation from above, while fear of Hashem comes (mainly) through the person's own effort. Just as the fear of a mortal king comes because the people accept him as king over them^[15]—acceptance of the kingship is through the people, as it says, "You shall surely set a king over you"^[16]. Based on this, we can explain the phrase "Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu Ka'asher Hayah Im Avoseinu": in yiras Hashem (which is the beginning, essence, and root of service^[17]), the main thing is the person's own effort, and the revelation from above (Hashem Elokeinu) only assists the person—"imanu" (with us).

3) The reason that yirah comes mainly through the person's own effort is because yirah is bittul (self-nullification). Especially the fear of the king: "You shall surely set a king over you so that his awe will be upon you"^[18]. The bittul of this yirah is connected to being the king's servant [the nature of a servant is that the master's awe is upon him], and the bittul of a servant is total. Therefore, it comes specifically through the person's own effort, because what is accomplished in a person through a revelation from above is like something added onto him, so the change is only in his form, not in the person himself. But to reach total bittul, the bittul of a servant [the difference between a free person and a servant is in their very being], it must be through the person himself accepting to be the king's servant.

Similarly, this applies to mesirus nefesh (self-sacrifice), since mesirus nefesh is total bittul, especially when it is for things that, according to halacha (a command from above), one is not obligated to give up one's life for^[19]. Therefore, it is (mainly) not through a revelation from above but through the person himself giving up his life. Based on this, we can better understand why the Baal HaGeulah's request and prayer (in the sicha of 3 Tammuz) used the wording of the verse: "Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu Ka'asher Hayah Im Avoseinu," because he was speaking about the service of mesirus nefesh, and even within that, there are many matters for which, according to halacha, one is not obligated to give up one's life, and this comes (mainly) from the person himself. Since in the service of mesirus nefesh the main thing is the person's own effort, and the revelation from above only assists, therefore he began his request and prayer (in the wording of the verse) "Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu."

4) The word "im" (with) applies when there is similarity between two things. As our Sages expound^[20] on the verse^[21] "ve'hisyatzvu sham imach" (and they shall stand there with you): "imach bedomin lecha" (with you—those similar to you). Although "im" implies something secondary (as above in section 2), nevertheless, there is a similarity to the main thing. Similarly, the word "es" also implies something secondary, as our Sages expound^[22] on the verse^[23] "es besaro" (his flesh)—"es hatofel lebesaro" (that which is secondary to his flesh), and yet it is similar to the main thing, as our Sages expound^[20] on the verse^[24] "venas'u itcha" (they shall carry with you): "itcha bedomin lecha" (with you—those similar to you). Grammar books^[25] explain that the secondary implied by "es" is even more secondary than that implied by "im"^[26]. Thus, with "es" the emphasis is on being only secondary, while with "im" the emphasis is on the similarity between the two. From this, we understand that the main emphasis in "Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu" is not that Hashem Elokeinu is, so to speak, secondary to the person, but rather the similarity between them. This similarity is in the concept of primary and secondary: just as the perfection of a person's service is when it is done with his own strength^[27], so Hashem Elokeinu is, so to speak, secondary to the person (as above in section 2). Conversely, the perfection of a person's service is when his service—even that which is done with his own strength, and even mesirus nefesh, including for things for which he is not obligated to give up his life—is not because he wants to serve Hashem, but because he is nullified to G‑dliness. Since his bittul to Hashem is total, every mitzvah (even those for which he is not obligated to give up his life) is for him in a way that it is unthinkable not to fulfill it, even if it requires mesirus nefesh.

Furthermore, through bittul to G‑dliness, there is an increase even in mesirus nefesh^[28]. When one's mesirus nefesh is because he wants and decides to fulfill Hashem's command even if it requires mesirus nefesh, there is room for the possibility of another outcome, and the fact that he actually stands with mesirus nefesh is only because he decided so. But when his mesirus nefesh is because of his bittul to Hashem, so that every command of Hashem is for him in a way that there is no possibility whatsoever of acting otherwise, then there is no room at all for any other possibility.

5) This is the meaning of "Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu Ka'asher Hayah Im Avoseinu": in the service of the Avos (forefathers), both of these aspects are emphasized. They fulfilled the entire Torah even before it was given^[29], which emphasizes that their service was (not because of a command from above, but) with their own strength. Yet, they were in total bittul, as the Avos are the chariot^[30]. The bittul of a chariot to its rider is total. The chariot's bittul is not because it wants to be nullified to the rider, but because of the rider. Since there are many levels in bittul, we request: "Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu Ka'asher Hayah Im Avoseinu"—that our bittul to G‑dliness should be as it was with our forefathers, the bittul of a chariot.

6) Based on this, we can explain why the Baal HaGeulah said, "Mir zaynen doch nit glaykh tzu avoseinu, velkhe zaynen geven baalei mesirus nefesh bepoel" (we are not like our forefathers, who had actual mesirus nefesh), including himself in this, because the true concept of mesirus nefesh is when it comes from bittul (as above, section 4). Since there are many levels in bittul (as above, section 5), it is appropriate for a person (out of humility) to say that he is lacking in mesirus nefesh. Based on this, we can also explain why the sicha says that in the request "Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu" is also included the meaning of "yehi" as a promise (vet zein mit unz), because the difference between prayer (request) and promise is that prayer is the person's request and promise is from above. Even with tzaddikim, when they are a "metzius" (an entity, even in a subtle way), prayer and promise are two different things. The promise of the tzaddik is in his role as Hashem's emissary, and his prayer is his own request. But when the tzaddik is such that even his own efforts (which would seem to be a "metzius") are in total bittul, then even his prayer (request) also contains the aspect of promise.

Furthermore, something similar (that even one's own existence is in bittul) was instilled in those connected to him. By implanting in them mesirus nefesh even for things that, according to halacha (a command from above), one is not obligated to give up one's life for (mesirus nefesh from the person), and that even this mesirus nefesh should be in a way that there is no possibility of any other way (mesirus nefesh from G‑dliness). Therefore, the fact that the Baal HaGeulah's request also includes the aspect of promise is also because of the recipients. And the promise will be fulfilled: "Yehi Hashem Elokeinu Imanu Ka'asher Hayah Im Avoseinu Al Ya'azveinu Ve'al Yitoshenu," and for all the Jewish people there will be light^[31] both spiritually and materially^[32].

Summary

This maamar explores how true mesirus nefesh (self-sacrifice) and bittul (self-nullification) are achieved when a person's own efforts are united with total surrender to G‑d. The Rebbe teaches that our request for G‑d's presence is also a promise, reflecting the deep bond between the Jewish people and Hashem.