When explaining the phrase,1 שִׁוִיתִי ה' לְנֶגְדִי תָמִיד, “I placed G‑d before me at all times,” the Baal Shem Tov2 focused on the word שִׁוִיתִי, noting that it shares the same root as the word שָׁוֶה, meaning “equal.” The implication is that when we see G‑d before us at all times, everything is equal. Every activity, whether obviously holy or seemingly mundane, is regarded equally, for they are all performed in His service.

This concept is reflected in the sichah that follows which focuses on the removal of the ashes from the Altar in the Beis HaMikdash. There were two acts involved in removing the ashes:

a) Lifting the ashes – as mandated by the Scriptural commandment,3 “He shall lift a panful of the ashes produced when the fire consumed the burnt offering on the Altar and place it next to the Altar.”

b) Taking the ashes outside – removing the ashes from all the sacrifices that were consumed by fire and placed in the ash-heap in the center of the Altar, taking them outside Jerusalem, and depositing them there.

Rashi understands the verse,4 “He shall remove his garments, put on alternate garments, and take the ashes outside the camp,” as referring specifically to the removal of the ashes from the ash-heap and not to the lifting up of the ashes.

What is the difference between these two services?

The Rebbe explains that the difference is reflected in an analogy given by Rashi in his commentary on the above verse, “The clothes worn [by a servant] while cooking a pot [of food] for his master should not [be worn when] he serves a cup [of wine] to his master.” A servant cooks a pot of food outside his master’s presence, while a cup of wine is served directly to him. Similarly, the lifting up of the ashes is performed in the courtyard of the Beis HaMikdash. It is a mitzvah carried out in the Master’s presence. By contrast, the removal of the ashes is merely a preliminary act – it involves clearing a space for the arrangement of wood on the altar and taking the ashes outside the Beis HaMikdash, to a place where His Divine Presence is not revealed.

The implication of Rashi’s commentary is that the same kohen shouldperform both services. Why wasn’t the removal of the ashes performed by a different kohen? For the reason emphasized initially – that from the perspective of G‑d’s will, there is no difference between the fulfillment of a mitzvah itself and the preparations to fulfill that mitzvah. True, G‑dliness is drawn down through the observance of the mitzvah, while the removal of the ashes is merely a preliminary act. Nevertheless, since they are both elements of His service, they are equal in His eyes.

Similarly, when we devote ourselves to G‑d’s purpose without thinking of our own importance, there is no difference between the two in our eyes either.

Why Change Clothes?


Commenting on the verse,5 “He [the kohen] shall remove his garments, put on alternate garments, and take the ashes outside the camp,” Rashi explains the words, “He shall remove his garments.” After noting that “this is not an obligation, but [merely] proper etiquette,”6 he gives the reason for this practice:

… so that, while taking out the ashes, he does not soil the garments in which he continuously7 serves. [To offer an analogy:] The clothes worn [by a servant] while cooking a pot [of food] for his master should not [be worn when] he serves a cup [of wine] to his master.8 Therefore, the kohen “should put on alternate, i.e., inferior, garments.”


"וּפָשַׁט אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים וְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶהא גוֹ'", וּבְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י עַל "וּפָשַׁט אֶת בְּגָדָיו" (לְאַחֲרֵי שֶׁמְּפָרֵשׁ "אֵין זוֹ חוֹבָה אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ")ב מְבָאֵר הַטַּעַם: "שֶׁלֹּא יְלַכְלֵךְ בְּהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן בְּגָדִים שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן תָּמִידג. בְּגָדִים שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהֶן קְדֵרָה לְרַבּוֹ אַל יִמְזוֹג בָּהֶן כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹד לְכָךְ וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים פְּחוּתִים מֵהֶן".

From a straightforward reading of Rashi’s words, it is understood that the obligation to change garments involves two different concepts and rationales:9

a) It is a requirement stemming from the respect due the priestly garments, to ensure that the garments “in which [a kohen] continuously serves” not be soiled when taking out the ashes. This resembles the explicit command previously stated10 that the priestly garments must engender “honor and glory.”

b) It is a requirement that is an element of the service of the kohanim. They should not perform a service comparable to “serving a cup [of wine] to one’s master” in garments worn while performing inferior services like “cooking a pot [of food] for his master.”

וּמִפַּשְׁטוּת לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י מוּבָן, שֶׁהֵם שְׁנֵי עִנְיָנִים וּטְעָמִיםה : (א) זֶהוּ דִּין בְּבִגְדֵי כְהֻנָּה, שֶׁאֵין לְלַכְלֵךְ (בְּהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן) אֶת הַבְּגָדִים "שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן תָּמִיד" (עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַמְפֹרָשׁ לְעֵילו שֶׁבִּגְדֵי כְהֻנָּה צְרִיכִים לִהְיוֹת "לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאֶרֶת"). (ב) דִּין בַּעֲבוֹדַת הַכְּהֻנָּה, שֶׁאֵין לַעֲשׂוֹת עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא בְּדֻגְמַת "מְזִיגַת כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ" בִּבְגָדִים אֵלֶּה שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בָּהֶם עֲבוֹדָה פְחוּתָה ("בִּשֵּׁל קְדֵרָה לְרַבּוֹ").

There are grounds for analysis why Rashiwhose commentary is not intended to present the motivating rationales for the mitzvos, but rather to explain the straightforward meaning of Scripture – felt it necessary to include both these reasons.

וְיֵשׁ לְעַיֵּן אַמַּאי הֻזְקַק רַשִׁ"י, שֶׁאֵינוֹ סֵפֶר שֶׁל טַעֲמֵי הַמִּצְווֹת וְלֹא בָא אֶלָּא לְפָרֵשׁ פְּשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא, לְהָבִיא שְׁנֵי טְעָמִים אֵלֶּה?

With regard to the first reason, it is possible to offer a straightforward explanation:11 The lengthy wording of the verse – “He shall remove his garments, and put on alternate garments” compels him to offer that explanation. Otherwise, the question arises: Why was it not sufficient for the verse to say, “He shall put on alternate garments.” That phrase would itself indicate that it is necessary for him to remove the garments he wore previously. Why must the verse add, “He shall remove his garments”?

בַּנּוֹגֵעַ לְטַעַם הָא', יֵשׁ לוֹמַר בְּפַשְׁטוּתז, שֶׁהוּא מֻכְרָח מֵאֲרִיכוּת לְשׁוֹן הַכָּתוּב "וּפָשַׁט אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים", דְּלִכְאוֹרָה תָּמוּהַּ, לָמָּה לֹא הִסְתַּפֵּק הַכָּתוּב בִּ"וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים" שֶׁמִּזֶּה כְּבָר יוֹדְעִים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִפְשׁוֹט אֶת בְּגָדָיו שֶׁלָּבַשׁ מִקֹּדֶם – וְ"וּפָשַׁט אֶת בְּגָדָיו" לָמָּה לִי?

The inclusion of that phrase indicates that the reason he must wear the alternate garments is to avoid soiling the garments he was previously wearing. Thus, the fundamental emphasis of the verse is not that he is putting on the alternate garments, but rather that he is removing the garments he previously wore.

וּמִזֶּה מוּכָח, שֶׁטַּעַם לְבִישַׁת בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים הוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְלַכְלֵךְ הַבְּגָדִים הַקּוֹדְמִים, וְנִמְצָא, שֶׁעִקַּר הַהַדְגָּשָׁה בַּכָּתוּב כַּאן הִיא (לֹא לְבִישַׁת בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים, אֶלָּא) פְּשִׁיטַת הַבְּגָדִים הַקּוֹדְמִים.

Selections from Likkutei Sichos (SIE)

Insights into the Weekly Parshah and festivals by the Lubavitcher Rebbe selected from the Likkutei Sichos series.

Nevertheless, it is not clear why Rashi adds the second reason, “The clothes worn [by a servant] while cooking a pot [of food] for his master should not [be worn when] he serves a cup [of wine] to his master.”12

אֲבָל אֵינוֹ מוּבָן – לָמָּה מוֹסִיף רַשִׁ"י גַּם טַעַם שֵׁנִי "בְּגָדִים שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהֶן קְדֵרָה לְרַבּוֹ אַל יִמְזוֹג בָּהֶן כוֹס לְרַבּוֹ"ח ?

True, this reason is mentioned in the Talmud.13 However, Rashi’s commentary on the Torah is intended to explain the straightforward meaning of Scripture and not to quote homilies and explanations of our Sages. Seemingly, the first interpretation – “so that, while taking out the ashes, he does not soil the garments in which he continuously serves” – appears sufficient to explain the meaning of the verses.

[וְאַף שֶׁטַּעַם זֶה מְקוֹרוֹ בִּגְמָרָאט, הֲרֵי פֵּרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י עַל הַתּוֹרָה בָּא לְפָרֵשׁ פְּשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא וְלֹא לְהַעְתִּיק דְּרָשׁוֹת וּפֵרוּשֵׁי חַזַ"ל, וּבִשְׁבִיל פֵּרוּשׁ הַכְּתוּבִים לִכְאוֹרָה דַּי בְּטַעַם הָא' "שֶׁלֹּא יְלַכְלֵךְ בְּהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן בְּגָדִים שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן תָּמִיד"].

On the surface, it is possible to say that this rationale was added to clarify the law which Rashi cites at the end of his commentary, “Therefore, ‘he should put on alternate,’ i.e., inferior, ‘garments.’ ” Seemingly, the reason the garments should be inferior stems from the second rationale – that the type of garments in which a servant serves a cup of wine to his master are different from the garments in which he cooks a pot of food. By contrast, according to the first rationale, all that is necessary to say is that they are not the same clothes, so that the first garments do not become soiled.14 Ostensibly, they could be of the same quality.

לִכְאוֹרָה אֶפְשָׁר לְתָרֵץ שֶׁטַּעַם זֶה בָּא לְבָאֵר הַדִּין (שֶׁהֵבִיא רַשִׁ"י בְּסוֹף דְּבָרָיו) "וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים – פְּחוּתִים מֵהֶן", שֶׁלִּכְאוֹרָה זֶהוּ מִצַּד הַטַּעַם הַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁאֵינוֹ דוֹמֶה סוּג הַבְּגָדִים שֶׁמּוֹזֵג בָּהֶן כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ לְסוּג הַבְּגָדִים שֶׁמְּבַשֵּׁל בָּהֶם קְדֵרָה (מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן לְטַעַם הָא', שֶׁנּוֹגֵעַ רַק שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ אוֹתָם הַבְּגָדִים מַמָּשׁ (כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְלַכְלְכוּ)י, לִכְאוֹרָה אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אוֹתוֹ הַסּוּג כוּ').

However, that resolution cannot be offered15 because:

אֲבָל אֵין לוֹמַר כֵּןיא, כִּי:

a) From the fact that Rashi included the second reason and wrote it in continuation to the first reason under the heading, “He shall remove his garments,” – and only at the end of his commentary did he state, “Therefore, he should put on alternate, i.e., inferior, garments” – it appears that the second rationale also comes to explain why he must remove his garments and not that “ he should put on alternate, i.e., inferior, garments.”

א) מִזֶּה שֶׁרַשִׁ"י צֵרֵף הַטַּעַם הַשֵּׁנִי וּכְתָבוֹ בְּהֶמְשֵׁךְ לְטַעַם הָרִאשׁוֹן, וּבְדִבּוּר הַמַּתְחִיל "וּפָשַׁט אֶת בְּגָדָיו" [וְרַק בְּסִיּוּם הַפֵּרוּשׁ כָּתַב "לְכָךְ וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים פְּחוּתִים מֵהֶן"], מַשְׁמָע, שֶׁגַּם הַטַּעַם הַשֵּׁנִי בָּא לְבָאֵר (לֹא זֶה שֶׁ"וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים, פְּחוּתִים מֵהֶן", אֶלָּא) זֶה שֶׁ"וּפָשַׁט אֶת בְּגָדָיו".

b) On the surface, even according to the first reason, it is understood why the alternate garments should be inferior. Since the garments will be soiled by taking out the ashes, it is reasonable to assume that the garments worn then will be inferior to the ordinary priestly garments.

ב) לִכְאוֹרָה, גַּם לְטַעַם הָא' מוּבָן אַמַּאי צְרִיכִים לִהְיוֹת בְּגָדִים "פְּחוּתִים מֵהֶן", דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁבְּהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן מִתְלַכְלְכִים הַבְּגָדִים, מִסְתַּבֵּר שֶׁהַבְּגָדִים שֶׁלּוֹבְשִׁים אָז הֵם "פְּחוּתִים מֵהֶן".

So One’s Garments Do Not Become Soiled


To offer an easily understood resolution: By adding the second rationale, Rashi is attempting to answer a question that arises according to a straightforward understanding of Scripture here. The verse describing the removal of the ashes comes directly after and in continuation of the description of lifting of the ash in the previous verse,16 “The kohen shall put on his linen tunic and shall wear linen breeches over his flesh. He shall lift a panful of the ash produced when the fire consumed the burnt offering on the altar and place it next to the altar.” From the sequence of the verses, it appears that the primary reason the kohen must take care to change his garments when later removing all the ashes is because of the clothes – the linen tunic and linen breeches – that he was wearing when he first lifted the ash.


וְנִרְאֶה לוֹמַר בְּפַשְׁטוּת, שֶׁבְּהוֹסָפַת הַטַּעַם הַשֵּׁנִי בָּא רַשִׁ"י לְתָרֵץ קֻשְׁיָא בִּפְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא כַּאן:

פָּסוּק זֶה עַל דְּבַר הוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן בָּא בְּהֶמְשֵׁךְ לְדִין תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן שֶּׁבַּפָּסוּק הַקּוֹדֵםיב – "וְלָבַשׁ הַכֹּהֵן מִדּוֹ בַד וּמִכְנְסֵי בַד יִלְבַּשׁ עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְהֵרִים אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעֹלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְשָׂמוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ". וּמַשְׁמָע, שֶׁעִקַּר הַזְּהִירוּת בִּפְשִׁיטַת הַבְּגָדִים בִּשְׁבִיל הוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן הוּא בִּגְלַל הַבְּגָדִים ("מִדּוֹ בַד וּמִכְנְסֵי בַד") שֶׁהָיָה לָבוּשׁ בָּהֶם בְּעֵת הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן.

This requires clarification: How is it possible to say that the reason the kohen must remove his garments before taking out the ashes is so that they will be clean when he serves in them? That same concern – that the garments may become soiled – applies when he performs the initial service of lifting the ash.

וְתָמוּהַּ: אֵיךְ אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר שֶׁטַּעַם פְּשִׁיטַת בְּגָדָיו לִפְנֵי הוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן הוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נְקִיִּים בְּעֵת שֶׁמְּשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, וַהֲרֵי גַם בְּעֵת שֶׁמְּשַׁמֵּשׁ בַּעֲבוֹדַת הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן קַיָּם הַחֲשָׁשׁ שֶׁל לִכְלוּךְ הַבְּגָדִים.

True, the concern regarding soiling the garments when lifting the ash is not the same as when taking out the ashes, as Rashi states in his commentary on the Talmud,17 “[During] the removal of the ashes… the [priestly] garments are degraded and soiled by [the ashes]. However, [since the initial] lifting of the ash only [requires] one full fire-pan [of ash] each day… the [priestly] garments will not become soiled.” Nevertheless, it is obvious that compared to the other services in the Beis HaMikdash, lifting the ash is not a particularly “clean” service. If so, why should the kohen not remove the garments he wears when performing other services before lifting the ash?

וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דוֹמֶה חֲשַׁשׁ הַלִּכְלוּךְ בַּהֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן לְלִכְלוּךְ הַבְּגָדִים בְּהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְשַׁ"סיג דְּ"גַבֵּי הוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן . . הַבְּגָדִים מִתְבַּזִּים וּמִתְלַכְלְכִין בָּהֶן אֲבָל תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מְלֹא מַחְתָּה לְיוֹם . . אֵין שָׁם לִכְלוּךְ בְּגָדִים" – מִכָּל מָקוֹם מוּבָן, שֶׁבְּעֶרֶךְ לִשְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֵין הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן מְלָאכָה "נְקִיָּה" כָּל כָּךְ, וְאִם כֵּן אַמַּאי לֹא יִפְשׁוֹט אֶת בְּגָדָיו (שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בָּהֶם שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת) גַּם בִּשְׁבִיל הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן.

(Note, that according to Rambam,18 the service of lifting the ashshould also be performed while wearing inferior garments,19 as he writes:20

The priestly garments that [a kohen wears while] lifting the ash should be inferior to the garments [he wears] while performing other services, as it is written, “He shall remove his garments, put on alternate garments, and lift the ash.”21 The term “other” does not imply ordinary garments, but rather [priestly garments] that are less valuable than the first. [The rationale is that] it is not proper etiquette to serve a cup [of wine] to one’s master in the same clothes as one cooked a pot [of food] for him.)22

[וּלְהָעִיר שֶׁלְּדַעַת הָרַמְבַּ"םיד גַּם הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן הִיא בִּבְגָדִים פְּחוּתִיםטו, וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹטז : "וּבִגְדֵי כְהֻנָּה שֶׁתּוֹרֵם בָּהֶן הַדֶּשֶׁן יִהְיוּ פְּחוּתִין מִן הַבְּגָדִים שֶׁמְּשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶם בִּשְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּפָשַׁט אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים וְהֵרִים אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר אֲחֵרִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בִּגְדֵי חוֹל אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ פְּחוּתִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ שֶׁיִּמְזוֹג כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ בִּבְגָדִים שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהֶם קְדֵרָה לְרַבּוֹיז ].

Serving in the Presence of the Master


In order to resolve this question, Rashi brings the second rationale, using the analogy, “The clothes worn [by a servant] while cooking a pot [of food] for his master should not [be worn when] he serves a cup [of wine] to his master.” The first reason given, “so that, while taking out the ashes, he does not soil the garments in which he continuously serves,” leaves room to assume that lifting the ash should be performed while wearing the same garments worn when removing the ash. Indeed, careful attention to Rashi’s wording, “so that he does not soil … the garments in which he continuously serves,” shows that here the emphasis is not on the service spoken about in this verse – lifting the ash – but rather on all the other services performed in the Beis HaMikdash, “[the garments] in which he continuously serves.”


וּכְדֵי לְתָרֵץ קֻשְׁיָא זוֹ הֵבִיא רַשִׁ"י אֶת הַטַּעַם הַשֵּׁנִי (הַמָּשָׁל) דִּ"בְגָדִים שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהֶן כוּ' אַל יִמְזוֹג בָּהֶן כּוֹס כוּ'":

מִצַּד הַטַּעַם הָא' "שֶׁלֹּא יְלַכְלֵךְ בְּהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן בְּגָדִים שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן תָּמִיד", הָיָה מָקוֹם לוֹמַר שֶׁגַּם הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּאוֹתָם הַבְּגָדִים שֶׁבָּהֶם מוֹצִיא אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן. וּמְדֻיָּק הֵיטֵב בִּלְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י "שֶׁלֹּא יְלַכְלֵךְ . . בְּגָדִים שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן תָּמִיד", הַיְנוּ, שֶׁכַּאן אֵין הַדִּיּוּק עַל הַשִּׁמּוּשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ אַיְירִי בִּקְרָא כַּאן (הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן), אֶלָּא קָאֵי עַל שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, "שֶׁמְּשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן תָּמִיד".

The reason why lifting the ash is, nevertheless, included among the other services performed in the Beis HaMikdash in this context – i.e., that it is not performed in the garments worn while taking out the ashes – can be understood through the analogy, “The clothes worn [by a servant] while cooking a pot [of food] for his master should not be [worn when] he serves a cup [of wine] to his master.”

וְהַטַּעַם שֶׁגַּם הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן נִכְלֶלֶת בִּשְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּעִנְיָן זֶה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נַעֲשֵׂית בְּהַבְּגָדִים שֶׁמּוֹצִיא בָּהֶן אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן, מוּבָן עַל פִּי הַמָּשָׁל דִּ"בְגָדִים שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהֶן קְדֵרָה לְרַבּוֹ אַל יִמְזוֹג בָּהֶן כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ":

One of the differences between cooking a pot of food and serving a cup of wine is that a pot of food is not cooked in the presence of the master, but in another place. By contrast, a cup of wine is served in his presence.

אֶחָד הַחִלּוּקִים בֵּין בִּשּׁוּל קְדֵרָה וּמְזִיגַת כּוֹס הוּא, דְּבִשּׁוּל קְדֵרָה אֵינוֹ בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, וְאִלּוּ מְזִיגַת כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ הִיא בְּפָנָיו.

This constitutes the difference between lifting the ash and taking out the ashes. Although in both cases the ash is removed from the altar, the ash that is lifted is placed “next to the altar,” i.e., in the master’s presence. By contrast, the ashes which are removed are taken “outside the camp, to a pure place.”

וְזֶהוּ הַחִלּוּק בֵּין הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וְהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, דְּאַף שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶם נוֹטְלִים אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן מֵעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, הֲרֵי בַּהֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן נֶאֱמַר "וְשָׂמוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ", וְאִלּוּ הוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן הִיא "אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה אֶל מָקוֹם טָהוֹר".

Therefore, since lifting the ash is performed in the presence of the master, it should be done while wearing dignified garments, as one would when serving a cup of wine. By contrast, taking the ashes outside the camp even though it begins “in the presence of the master” – when the ashes are taken away from the altar23 – it fundamentally resembles “cooking a pot of food,” an act that is not performed in the presence of the master.24 Therefore, it is done while wearing inferior garments.

וְלָכֵן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן הִיא "בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ", צְרִיכָה לִהְיוֹת בִּבְגָדִים חֲשׁוּבִים, כְּמוֹ מְזִיגַת כּוֹס, וְאִלּוּ הוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה אַף שֶׁהַתְחָלָתָהּ הִיא "בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ", נְטִילַת דֶּשֶׁן מֵעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַיח, הֲרֵי עִקָּרָהּ הוּא כְּמוֹ בִּשּׁוּל קְדֵרָה, דָּבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹיט, וְלָכֵן נַעֲשֶׂה בִּבְגָדִים פְּחוּתִים יוֹתֵר.

Furthermore, cooking a pot of food is done in preparation for serving the master. By contrast, serving a cup of wine in and of itself constitutes service, i.e., serving a cup of wine is not merely the conclusion of the service, it is a fundamental dimension of the service itself, as evident from the manner in which Yaakov served Yitzchak25 – “He served him the food to eat and [afterwards] brought him wine to drink.” By contrast, cooking the food for the master is a very preliminary and preparatory stage26 for subsequent service.

וְעוֹד זֹאת: בִּשּׁוּל קְדֵרָה הֲרֵי הוּא הֲכָנָה לְשִׁמּוּשׁ רַבּוֹ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן מְזִיגַת כּוֹס הֲרֵי זֶה גּוּף הַשִּׁמּוּשׁ. כְּלוֹמַר: מְזִיגַת כּוֹס אֵינָהּ רַק סִיּוּם וּגְמַר הַשִּׁמּוּשׁ, אֶלָּא הִיא חֵלֶק עִקָּרִי מֵהַשִּׁמּוּשׁ עַצְמוֹ [וְכַמּוּבָן גַּם מִשִּׁמּוּשׁ יַעֲקֹב לְיִצְחָק, שֶׁ"וַיַּגֶּשׁ לוֹ וַיֹּאכַל (וְאַחַר כָּךְ) וַיָּבֵא לוֹ יַיִן וַיֵּשְׁתְּ"כ ], וְאִלּוּ בִּשּׁוּל קְדֵרָה תֹּכְנוֹ רַק הֲכָנָהכא דַהֲכָנָה לִכְלָלוּת הַשִּׁמּוּשׁ.

This constitutes the difference between lifting the ash and removing the ashes. Lifting the ash is a mitzvah in its own right – constituting the conclusion of the mitzvah of offering a sacrifice,27 i.e., with regard to the service of offering a sacrifice, lifting the ash constitutes its conclusion and consummation.28 By contrast, removing the ashes is merely a very preliminary preparatory step, clearing space for the arrangement of wood on the altar.29

וְזֶהוּ הַחִלּוּק בֵּין הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וְהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן: הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן הִיא מִצְוָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, סִיּוּםכב וּגְמַר מִצְוַת הַקָּרְבָּן, וְהַיְנוּ דִּבְהַשִּׁמּוּשׁ דַּעֲבוֹדַת הַקָּרְבָּן גּוּפָא הֲרֵי זֶה הַגְּמַר וְהַשְּׁלֵמוּת שֶׁלּוֹכג, וְאִלּוּ הוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא מַכְשִׁיר דְּמַכְשִׁיר, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מָקוֹם פָּנוּי לַמַּעֲרָכָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַכד.

On this basis, by adding the phrase, “The clothes worn [by a servant] while cooking a pot [of food] for his master should not be [worn when] he serves a cup [of wine] to his master,” Rashi comes to add a further rationale besides that of preventing the priestly garments from becoming soiled. Rashi added this reason because there are any number of services performed by the kohanim that can soil their clothing, beginning with the slaughter of the animal to be sacrificed, receiving its blood, sprinkling the blood on the altar, placing the portions of the sacrifice that will be consumed by fire on the altar, and – how much more so – lifting the ash that was mentioned in the previous verse.

וְעַל פִּי זֶה מוּבָן, שֶׁבְּזֶה שֶׁרַשִׁ"י מוֹסִיף "בְּגָדִים שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהֶן קְדֵרָה לְרַבּוֹ אַל יִמְזוֹג בָּהֶן כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ" בָּא לְהוֹסִיף שֶׁהַטַּעַם הוּא לֹא רַק בִּשְׁבִיל לִכְלוּךְ בִּגְדֵי כְהֻנָּה, שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּכַמָּה עֲבוֹדוֹת הָחֵל מִשְּׁחִיטַת הַקָּרְבָּן, קַבָּלַת הַדָּם, זְרִיקַת הַדָּם וְהַקְטָרָה וְכוּ', יֵשׁ מָקוֹם וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּתְלַכְלְכוּ בְּגָדָיו, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן וְקַל וָחֹמֶר תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן שֶׁבַּכָּתוּב הַקּוֹדֵם –

The difference is that these are services performed “in the presence of the master” and intended for the master’s benefit. Hence, there is no concern about the garments becoming dirty while performing these services in themand any dirt or stain that becomes attached to them is not considered as soiling the garments. On the contrary, even though it is inevitable that the garments will not remain clean, performing these services is considered as serving the Master.

אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּעֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ וְתֹכְנָהּ הוּא גֶדֶר הַשֵּׁרוּת לְרַבּוֹ, לֹא נֶחְשָׁב לְלִכְלוּךְ, וְלֹא חָל עַל זֶה שֵׁם לִכְלוּךְ, דְּאַדְּרַבָּה, זֶהוּ תֹּכֶן הַשֵּׁרוּת לְרַבּוֹ;

By contrast, when service is not performed in the presence of the master and its intent is merely a preliminary step to actions that enable the service there, any uncleanliness is considered as soiling the garments.

מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּעֲבוֹדָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ וְתֹכְנָהּ הוּא רַק הֶכְשֵׁר דְּהֶכְשֵׁר, חָל עַל זֶה שֵׁם לִכְלוּךְ.

A Consummate Commitment


The following insight can be derived from “the wine of the Torah30 that is embedded in Rashi’s commentary here: On the surface, Rashi’s statements require clarification. Since taking out the ashes is comparable to “cooking a pot of food,” why is it performed by the same kohen who “serves a cup of wine to his master”? Generally, services of these two different types are performed by two types of servants. The servant who cooks a pot of food is not the same one who serves a cup of wine to the master.


מִיֵּינָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י:

לִכְאוֹרָה לְפִי דִבְרֵי רַשִׁ"י דָּרוּשׁ בֵּאוּר: מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן הִיא בְּדֻגְמַת בִּשּׁוּל קְדֵרָה, מַאי טַעְמָא נַעֲשֵׂית הִיא עַל יְדֵי אוֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן "הַמּוֹזֵג כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ", הֲרֵי עַל דֶּרֶךְ הָרָגִיל וּבְפַשְׁטוּת הֲרֵי הֵם נַעֲשִׂים עַל יְדֵי שְׁנֵי סוּגֵי עֲבָדִים, וְהַמְבַשֵּׁל קְדֵרָה אֵינוֹ הָעֶבֶד וְהַמְשָׁרֵת הַמּוֹזֵג כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ.

Based on that logic, seemingly, not only should the removal of the ashes be performed in other garments, but it should be performed by another kohen. Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer31 interprets the words “other” and “he shall remove” as teaching that kohanim with disqualifying physical blemishes, who are thus unfit to perform other services, are fit to remove the ashes.

וּלְפִי זֶה לֹא רַק שֶׁהָיָה צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת בִּבְגָדִים אֲחֵרִים אֶלָּא הָיָה רָאוּי שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה עַל יְדֵי כֹּהֵן אַחֵר [וּכְמוֹ שֶׁמָּצִינוּ דַּעַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דִּמְפָרֵשׁכה "אֲחֵרִים וְהוֹצִיא לִמֵּד עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁכְּשֵׁרִין לְהוֹצִיא הַדֶּשֶׁן"].

However, we see from Rashi’s commentary that although these are two different types of service, it is appropriate that the same kohen perform them both.

וַחֲזִינָן מֵהָא, דַּהֲגַם שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי עֲבוֹדוֹת שׁוֹנוֹת, מִכָּל מָקוֹם רָאוּי לְאוֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם.

It is possible to say that the above provides several lessons for every Jew – for every Jew can be considered a kohen, as implied by the verse,32 “You shall be for Me a kingdom of kohanim and a holy nation” – in his service to his Creator.33

וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁבְּזֶה יֵשׁ הוֹרָאָה בַּעֲבוֹדַת כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁכו, בְּשֵׁרוּתוֹ לְקוֹנוֹכז :

a) First, regarding a person’s own Divine service, there is a general lesson that he “should not sit and weigh the mitzvos of the Torah…, [reckoning] those that [appear to be] least important… and those that [appear to be] most important…. [Instead,] they are all equal.”34 In addition, the service of G‑d must involve not only the actual performance of the mitzvos, but even the preparations – and also, the preliminary steps leading to those preparations – for the mitzvos. Thus, the Talmud35 exclaims, “How great are the deeds of [Rabbi] Chiya!” When Rabbi Chiya wanted to make sure that Torah study be perpetuated among Jewish children, he not only taught the students, he himself performed all the preparations for teaching them and even the preliminary steps leading to those preparations. As the Talmud relates,36 he himself planted flaxseeds, wove nets from the flax fibers, trapped deer, made parchment and scrolls from the skins of the deer, wrote the five books of the Torah for five children and had them learn from them and teach others.... Furthermore, he performed all the preliminary activities with the same dedication and commitment with which he actually performed the mitzvah.

א) בַּנּוֹגֵעַ לְעַצְמוֹ, נוֹסָף עַל הַהוֹרָאָה הַכְּלָלִית דְּ"לֹא תְהֵא יוֹשֵׁב וְשׁוֹקֵל מִצְווֹתֶיהָ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה . . קַלָּה שֶׁבְּקַלּוֹת . . וַחֲמוּרָה שֶׁבַּחֲמוּרוֹת . . הֲרֵי הֵן שָׁוִין"כח, הֲרֵי עֲבוֹדָה וְשֵׁרוּת לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת לֹא רַק בְּמִצְווֹת בְּפֹעַל אֶלָּא גַם בְּהַהֲכָנָה וַהֲכָנָה דַהֲכָנָה דְהַמִּצְוָה, וְכִדְאִיתָא בִּגְמָרָאכט "כַּמָּה גְדוֹלִים מַעֲשֵׂה חִיָּיא", שֶׁהוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ הִתְעַסֵּק לֹא רַק בְּעֶצֶם הַלִּמּוּד עִם תַּלְמִידִים אֶלָּא עָשָׂה בְּעַצְמוֹ אֶת כָּל הַהֲכָנוֹת וַהֲכָנוֹת לַהֲכָנוֹת, שֶׁבְּעַצְמוֹ זָרַע פִּשְׁתָּן "וּמְגַדַּלְנָאקיט נִישְׁבֵי (מְקַלֵּעַ אֲנִי מִכְמֹרֶת) וְצַיַּדְנָא טַבְיָא (צְבָיִים) . . וַאֲרִיכְנָא מְגִילָתָא (וּמְתַקֵּן אֲנִי קְלָפִים) . . וּכְתִיבְנָא חַמְשָׁא חֻמְשֵׁי (תוֹרָה) לְחַמְשָׁא יְנוּקֵי כוּ'".

וְעוֹד זֹאת, שֶׁעָשָׂה הַכֹּל בְּאוֹתָהּ הַמְּסִירָה וּנְתִינָה כְּמוֹ לְהַמִּצְוָה עַצְמָהּ.

What motivated him to conduct himself in this manner? His awesome bittul to G‑d’s will.

The differences between the fulfillment of a mitzvah, the preparations for the fulfillment of a mitzvah, and the preliminary steps leading to those preparations are relevant only when a person feels his own individual identity. True, such a person is expressing his identity in the sphere of holiness; nevertheless, he is conscious of his own identity. Therefore, he does not regard the preliminary activities with the same importance and value as he does the actual performance of the mitzvah. He is conscious that it is specifically through the mitzvos that G‑d’s commandment is fulfilled and, as a result, a bond is established with Him, as reflected in the blessing recited before the fulfillment of all the mitzvos, praising G‑d “Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us….” Therefore, it is their fulfillment that motivates him more powerfully.

וְהַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁיִּתָּכֵן זֶה הוּא מִצַּד גֹּדֶל בִּטּוּלוֹ לְרָצוֹן הָעֶלְיוֹן. דְּחִלּוּקֵי דַרְגּוֹת, בֵּין מִצְוָה לְהֶכְשֵׁר מִצְוָה וְהֶכְשֵׁר דְּהֶכְשֵׁר, שַׁיָּכִים בִּהְיוֹתוֹ בְּהַרְגָּשָׁתוֹ מְצִיאוּת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, דַּהֲגַם שֶׁהוּא מְצִיאוּת דִּקְדֻשָּׁה, מִכָּל מָקוֹם מַרְגִּישׁ אֶת מְצִיאוּתוֹ, וּמִצַּד זֶה, בַּהֶכְשֵׁר אֵינוֹ מַרְגִּישׁ חֲשִׁיבוּת וְתַכְלִית כְּמוֹ בְּגוּף קִיּוּם הַמִּצְוָה, כִּי דַוְקָא עַל יְדֵי הַמִּצְוָה נַעֲשֶׂה צִוּוּי וְחִבּוּר עִם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, כְּבִרְכַּת כָּל הַמִּצְווֹת "אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ";

However, from the perspective of G‑d’s will, there is no difference between the fulfillment of the mitzvah itself through which G‑dliness is drawn down and the preparations to fulfill that mitzvah.37

אֲבָל מִצַּד רְצוֹן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵין חִלּוּק בֵּין הַמִּצְוָה גוּפָא (שֶׁעַל יָדָהּ מַמְשִׁיכִים אֱלֹקוּת) וְהֶכְשֵׁר מִצְוָהלא.

When a person is characterized by utter bittul to G‑d’s will that transcends reason and logic, there is no difference what activity is mandated by G‑d’s will. Such a person will perform – and motivate others to perform – the preliminary activities necessary for a mitzvah just like the mitzvah itself.38

וְכַאֲשֶׁר הָאָדָם הוּא בְּבִטּוּל גָּמוּר לְרָצוֹן הָעֶלְיוֹן לְמַעְלָה מִטַּעַם וָדַעַת אֵין נַפְקָא מִנָּהּ בְּאֵיזֶה דָבָר הוּא רָצוֹן הָעֶלְיוֹן, וְעוֹשֶׂה וּמְעַשֶּׂה בְּהֶכְשֵׁר מִצְוָה כְּמוֹ בְּגוּף הַמִּצְוָהלב.

b) Similar concepts apply regarding one’s activities involving others. A person might make a reckoning that he will work to influence another Jew who is found “in thepresence of the Master,” i.e., in a synagogue or house of study. However, he might think that trying to influence a Jew who is found “outside the camp,” is not his personal mission.

ב) וְאוֹתוֹ הַדָּבָר הוּא גַם בַּעֲבוֹדָה עִם הַזּוּלַת: יָכוֹל אָדָם לַעֲשׂוֹת "חֶשְׁבּוֹן" שֶׁהוּא יַעֲסוֹק רַק בְּהַשְׁפָּעָה עַל יְהוּדִי כָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא "בִּמְקוֹם רַבּוֹ", בְּד' אַמּוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת וּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, אֲבָל לְהַשְׁפִּיעַ עַל יְהוּדִי הַנִּמְצָא "מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה" אֵין זֶה תַּפְקִידוֹ.

He agrees that it is a necessary and an important activity, but maintains that this is for other “kohanimto accomplish.His place, his service, and his activity should be “in thepresence of the Master.”

וְהַיְנוּ שֶׁאַף שֶׁזֶּהוּ דָּבָר נָחוּץ וְחָשׁוּב כוּ', הֲרֵי זֶה שַׁיָּךְ לְכֹהֲנִים אֲחֵרִים; מְקוֹמוֹ – עֲבוֹדָתוֹ וְהִתְעַסְּקוּתוֹ – הוּא אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ.

Rashi’s commentary here teaches us that the same servant who serves a cup of wine to his master must also go “outside the camp”39 and perform the service there.

וּלְמֵדִים מִפֵּרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י הַנַּ"ל, שֶׁאוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד הַמּוֹזֵג כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ הוּא עַצְמוֹ צָרִיךְ לָלֶכֶת חוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶהלג וְלַעֲשׂוֹת עֲבוֹדָתוֹ שָׁם.

This manner of service requires a sacrifice on his part. He must put on other, inferior garments. When he is “outside,” he cannot wear the same garments with which he performs his service “inside,” for he must wear the garments of the people he seeks to refine,40 involve himself with them and speak to them on their level.

וְאֹפֶן עֲבוֹדָתוֹ הוּא – שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַלְבִּישׁ אֶת עַצְמוֹ בִּ"בְגָדִים אֲחֵרִים – פְּחוּתִים מֵהֶן", וְלֹא בַּבְּגָדִים שֶׁבָּהֶם עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָתוֹ בִּפְנִים, וְהַיְנוּ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהִתְלַבֵּשׁ בִּלְבוּשֵׁי הַמִּתְבָּרֵר וְלַעֲסוֹק וּלְדַבֵּר עִמּוֹ, כְּפִי עֶרְכּוֹ וְדַרְגָּתוֹ.

True, this involves a very great descent for him; he is involved with a person who presently cannot be brought to the actual observance of the Torah and its mitzvos. All that he can possibly activate are merely the preparatory stages, that he “turn away from evil” or the like. Nevertheless, it is precisely these activities that earn him the right to be called a kohen in a complete sense, fulfilling his mission as one of those who “shall be for Me a kingdom of kohanim and a holy nation.”

וְאַף שֶׁזּוֹהִי יְרִידָה גְדוֹלָה בְּיוֹתֵר עֲבוּרוֹ, שֶׁעוֹסֵק עִם זֶה שֶׁלְּעֵת עַתָּה כָּל מַה שֶּׁיָּכוֹל לִפְעוֹל עָלָיו הוּא לֹא בְּעִנְיַן תּוֹרָה וּמִצְווֹת בְּפֹעַל אֶלָּא רַק הֲכָנָה וְהֶכְשֵׁר בִּלְבָד (עִנְיָן שֶׁל סוּר מֵרָע וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה), הֲרֵי דַוְקָא מִצַּד זֶה נִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם כֹּהֵן בִּשְׁלֵמוּת, "וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ",

In doing so, the person is serving G‑d by doing what G‑d did, as during the Exodus from Egypt when G‑d said, “I will descend to save [Israel] from the hands of the Egyptians.”41 G‑d took us out of Egypt, “not via an angel, not via a fiery seraph, not via an agent. Instead, the Holy One, blessed be He, in His glory, by Himself [took us out…,] as it is written, ‘I am G‑d,’42 I and no other.’ ”43

וְהַיְנוּ שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה הַשֵּׁרוּת לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה – וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בִּיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם, "וָאֵרֵד לְהַצִּילוֹ מִיַּד מִצְרַיִם"לד, שֶׁהוֹצִיאָנוּ ה' מִמִּצְרַיִם "לֹא עַל יְדֵי מַלְאָךְ וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי שָׂרָף וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בִּכְבוֹדוֹ וּבְעַצְמוֹ . . אֲנִי ה' אֲנִי הוּא וְלֹא אַחֵר"לה,

May we be worthy of a similar Redemption – that G‑d Himself hold each Jew by the hand, reaching out to each person in his place and taking him out of exile, as it is written,44 “G‑d your L‑rd will return your captives.” May this take place this Nissan,45 in keeping with our Sages’ teaching, “In Nissan, [the Jews] were redeemed [from Egypt] and in Nissan they will be redeemed in the future.”46

וְכֵן תִּהְיֶה לָנוּ, שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ אוֹחֵז בְּיַד כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד – "אִישׁ אִישׁ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ" – וּמוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הַגָּלוּת וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּבלו "וְשָׁב ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ אֶת שְׁבוּתְךָ", בְּנִיסָן זֶה מַמָּשׁ, בְּנִיסָן נִגְאֲלוּ וּבְנִיסָן עֲתִידִין לְהִגָּאֵללז.

Likkutei Sichos, Volume 37, p. 1ff.
Adapted from a sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Tzav, 5732 [1972]

(משיחת ש"פ צו תשל"ב)
לקוטי שיחות חלק לז צו