Ma’amar Basi L’Gani 5732

Introduction

The Alter Rebbe once said that one must live with the times. Contrary to the way it sounds, the Alter Rebbe was not advocating following modern trends and changing with the times by adjusting our Judaism to the changing values and mores of society. In fact, the opposite is true. The Alter Rebbe was referring to the times measured by the Torah. One must seek guidance for our lives from the weekly Torah portion. So if this week we are reading about the Egyptian bondage and Exodus, we must learn lessons concerning our own spiritual bondage and the proper path to Redemption, etc.

Chassidim have added another layer to the notion of “living with the times.” There is an expression that the Rebbe mentioned repeatedly: “the Chassidic Parsha.” He was referring to the study of the discourses of the Alter Rebbe on the weekly Torah portions in his seminal works Torah Or and Likkutei Torah”

In other words, in addition to the lessons gleaned from the actual narratives and laws of the Torah, we must also glean deeper insights from the wellsprings of Chassidus on those Biblical texts, as they correspond to that particular week.

But the Jewish cycle of time is measured yet another way. In addition to the weekly Torah readings, our year is seasoned with Holidays. We must obviously live with the messages of those Holidays, particularly as they are viewed through the lenses of Chassidus.

One may add that there are certain seasonal discourses that Chassidim “lived with” with extraordinary devotion. One such discourse—or series of discourses—is Basi L’gani.

The Previous Rebbe issued a discourse entitled Basi L’Gani to be studied on the tenth day of Shevat in the year 5710-1950, which was the yahrtzeit of his grandmother, the Rebbetzin Rivkah. That day, the Previous Rebbe left us physically as well and, as a result, this discourse became the final Divine message that was channeled through the Rebbe, the leader of that generation, to his followers, and indeed to the entire Jewish nation for posterity.

The Rebbe asked of us to study this discourse and review it publically throughout the day of Yud Shevat and study it in the days that lead to Yud Shevat.

From the year 5711—the first Hilula of the Previous Rebbe—onward the Rebbe delivered a Ma’amar/Chassidic Discourse with the same title of Basi L’Gani. Indeed, the recitation of that discourse was the sign that the Rebbe had finally accepted the role of Rebbe after many months of protesting that he would not assume that position.

Each year the discourse focused and elaborated on one chapter of the Discourse. The original Ma’amar (which is actually a series of four discourses) comprises twenty chapters and for twenty years the Rebbe delivered a Ma’amar on the chapter that corresponded to that year. In the year 5730, the Rebbe concluded a series of annual Basi L’gani discourses, elaborating on the final twentieth chapter. There was some suspense as to what the Rebbe would do the next year.

In the year 5731, the Rebbe started a new series of discourses beginning again with a Ma’amar on the first chapter of the original Ma’amar. It was a completely new discourse, not a repetition of the one he said in 5711. This custom continued until— and through—the year 5748, when the Rebbe delivered a discourse on the 18th chapter. For reasons that were not divulged, the Rebbe did not continue this custom for the years beyond 5748. However, he did edit and submit for publication some of the earlier discourses, including the one of 5732. This was one of the last discourses the Rebbe edited for publication for Yud Shevat 5752.

In short, Chassidim were asked to live with—and they did live—with Basi L’gani in general and the corresponding chapter in particular. This year 5772 (the fourth cycle) we live with the discourses that the Rebbe said in the years 5712 and 5732.

The following is a free translation of the Rebbe’s discourse of 5732. The footnotes that are in the original discourse were also translated. Additional footnotes were added to help clarify some of the concepts in the Ma’amar. Those footnotes use a smaller font and are bracketed to distinguish them from the Rebbe’s.

It is my fervent prayer that the study of this Ma’amar will hasten the time when we will be reunited with the Ba’al Hilulo and see the awakening of our Rebbe, Dovid Malka Mashicha, imminently.

Heschel Greenberg

Rosh Chodesh Shevat, 5772

Buffalo, New York

The Ma’amar

“I have come into My garden, My sister, My bride”

My sainted father-in-law, the Rebbe, Ba’al Ha’hilula¹—in the discourse issued for his Histalkus² Shir HaShirim 5, 1.

{The entire book of Shir Hashirim is a metaphor that describes the mutual love between G-d and the Jewish people.} and Hilula—cites the Midrash Rabbah’s comments on this verse:

The words “My garden” means “My chamber;” to the place where My essence was originally revealed, for the essence of the Shechinah (Divine presence) was originally revealed below. And through undesirable behavior (beginning with the Tree of Knowledge) the Shechinah departed upward to the seventh heaven.

Afterwards, seven righteous people arose (beginning with our Father Abraham, “Abraham was unique”³) and brought the Shechinah closer to earth, until Moses arrived, who was the seventh—and “all sevens are beloved”⁴—and brought it down to the earth. This process (of the drawing down and descent of the Shechinah below to this earth) was expressed primarily⁵ in the Beis Hamikdash (The Basi l’gani 5710 (Sefer Ha’Ma’arim 5710, p. 111 onward. This discourse was submitted by the Ba’al HaHilula for Yud Shevat 5710, the day of his histalkut.

Holy Temple) as it says,⁶ “Make for me a sanctuary and I will dwell in them.”

It should be noted that the discussion of the Midrash relates to the time in which the extension of the Shechinah below occurred; the essential drawing down of the Shechinah to this world occurred on the day the Mishkan was erected. By contrast, the discourse focuses on the location into which the Shechinah was extended. The primary extension was in the Mishkan and Mikdash and The reference to the Beis Hamikdash here is taken from the original discourse. This is problematic because it would have been more precise to have written either “Mishkan” or just “MIkdash” consistent with the terminology of the Biblical verse. Offhand, it may be suggested that the emphasis on the word Beis Hamikdash is due to the fact that the Mishkan was only a temporary dwelling place (II Shmuel 7:6. Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:16 (3), whereas the essential place for the dwelling of the Shechinah was in the Beis Hamikdash. See below sec. 2 where it is stated that the Mishkan that Moses built empowered the Shechinah to dwell in the Beis Hamikdash.

through which Divine revelation extended to the world at large.

The Discourse continues by focusing on the precise use of the term “I will dwell in them” mentioned in the Biblical text. It does not say “I will dwell in it” but rather “in them.” This implies that He dwells in each and every member of Israel.⁷ {The Rebbe is stressing here that the Discourse departs somewhat from the Midrashic source to focus on the location of the Divine presence rather than on the time it was revealed. This ties in with the general flow of this Discourse (and of Chassidic thought in general) concerning the ultimate purpose of existence to transform the physical world into a dwelling place for G-d. Through the Divine presence in the Mishkan and Mikdash the entire world is affected. And although time and space are interconnected; time is a more ethereal aspect of the physical world than that of space. Therefore making the realm of space more receptive to G-d’s presence assumes greater importance in the scheme of realizing His purpose in creation.} This also explains the verse “The righteous will inherit the land, and they will dwell on it eternally.”⁸ The righteous ones cause the dwelling (i.e., the eliciting and “downloading”⁹) of the Shechinah, referred to as “eternal,” as in the words, “Shochein Ad-the One who dwells forever, exalted and holy”¹⁰—that it should be revealed below.

It may be suggested that the reason the discourse expounds on the verse “the righteous will inherit the land…” after explaining that the primary elicitation was in the Mishkan¹¹ and after explaining how the Reishis Chochma, Shaar HoAhavah, near the beginning of chapter 6 (paragraph beginning with words: ushnei pesukim 69b), et al. – referenced in Likkutei Sichos vol. 27, p. 414.

plural use of “in them” indicates that the Shechinah dwells within each and every member of Israel – is to indicate that the phenomenon of the righteous eliciting the Shechinah below (“and they will dwell on it forever”) is not restricted to the seven righteous people from Abraham to Moses. It applies to each and every Jew, about whom it is said: “Your nation are all righteous.”¹²¹³ By employing the plural form “I will dwell in them” that refers also to each and every Jew, it thus conveys two messages:

Every Jew is empowered to become a Mishkan and Mikdash for G-d; that the primary manifestation of construction of the Mishkan. The discourse changes the order of these two themes.

the Shechinah shall dwell in him exactly as it was in the Beis Hamikdash—“I will dwell in them.” It also suggests that through this process, G-dliness is extended to the entire world—“and they will dwell on it (the earth) forever.”

Another insight:

The Discourse discusses the foregoing interpretation of the plural “I will dwell in them-within each and every one” in the context of Moses’ role in bringing the Shechinah down below. This suggests that the power that each individual Jew has to elicit the essence of the Shechinah derives from Moses’ efforts of bringing the essence of the Shechinah down below.

This parallels the process of G-d’s descent on Mount Sinai to give us the Torah at which time we were given the power to subsequently reveal G-dliness below. [This is indicated by our Sages’ statement¹⁴ that when the Torah was given, the decree that “the upper spheres shall not descend below” was nullified. Nullification of the decree implies that Yisro 19:20.

from that point onwards the “upper spheres” can descend below.]

The same can be said of the effects of bringing G- dliness below through the Mishkan that Moses constructed. [The advantage of the Mishkan over the giving of the Torah in terms of eliciting G- dliness below is that at Mattan Torah the initiative was from above (and was therefore only of a temporary nature), whereas the Mishkan enabled the physical objects out of which it was constructed to become receptacles for the revelation of G- dliness.¹⁵] When Moses brought the Shechinah down into the Mishkan, thereby allowing the physical objects to become vessels for G-dliness, he created the See Sefer HaMaamarim 5643, p. 222.

potential for the same dynamic to occur in the Beis Hamikdash, as well as in the spiritual Sanctuary within each and every Jew. And just as by drawing the G-dly presence within the Mishkan facilitated its extension to the entire world, the same applies to the effects of the spiritual Sanctuary within each and every Jew. The dwelling of the Shechinah within the person (“I will dwell in them”) is a channel through which G-dliness is spread to the world at large, leading to the fulfillment of: “And He will dwell forever on it.”

The Discourse continues:

The reason why the essence of the Shechinah was originally below is because the very purpose for which G-d created the world was to fulfill His desire to have a dwelling place in the lowest realm. G-d’s desire to have a dwelling place in the lowest world, the discourse explains, was that G-dliness shall be revealed below through our initiative, specifically See Tanchuma, Naso 16. Bechukosai 3. Bamidbar Rabbah13. et al.

through iskafia-suppressing of evil and ishapcha, transformation of evil.

[It may be suggested that the statement in the discourse that the revelation in this world is caused by iskafia and ishapcha applies also to the desire G- d has to have a dwelling place in the lowest world. In other words, G-d’s desire to have a dwelling down here in this world entails several points: a) The desire was for G-dliness to dwell in the lowest of worlds; b) that the revelation of G-dliness should not be a unilateral initiative from above but should {The Rebbe, in an earlier discourse (Basi L’Gani 5731, published in Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, Volume 5, p. 153) raises the question: If G-d’s purpose was to make His dwelling in our world a product of our efforts, why does the Midrash state that when He created the world the essence of the Shechinah was already present in this world? That was prior to any human endeavor? The Rebbe answers: “that the essence f the Shechinah was below at the beginning of creation means that this lowly world was created in such a fashion that His desire became an integral part of creation that gave the world the potential or predisposition that endows our human efforts with the capacity to make the world a dwelling place for G-d’s essence, even within the context of our world.”} rather be generated by human effort; c) that the human effort should be iskafia and ishapcha which involve a human dynamic.] The discourse continues:

The G-dly revelation below that is generated by the service of iskafia and ishapcha is one that is beyond even having a connection to this world.¹⁶ {The terms used here translated literally would yield: “a service that derives from the very concept of lowliness.” Perhaps, the Rebbe is distinguishing between human endeavor such as doing a Mitzvah that one enjoys. Although the mitzvah involves human effort, it does not require the human being to struggle with his lowly human traits and alter them as is the case with iskafia and ishapcha. These approaches do not only involve our work, they come from our “gut.”} [This is consistent with the idea mentioned above that through the construction of the Sanctuary the essence of the Shechinah was revealed below because what is meant by the “essence of the Shechinah” is the G-dly light that transcends all of the worlds.¹⁷ Indeed, constructing a Mishkan in the spiritual sense involves iskafia and ishapcha through which the G-dly light that transcends the worlds is elicited—the essence of the Shechinah.] This is rooted in the saying¹⁸ “When the “other side” is suppressed (iskafia), the glory of G-d is revealed in all of the worlds equally.” The definition of “in all the worlds” is the G-dly Light that is present in all reveal that encompassing light and introduce into our world. This is what it means when it says here, “it is beyond even having a connection to this world.” This light normally cannot be accessed because it is utterly beyond even having a remote connection to us, except through the process of iskafia and Ishapcha} of the world equally, i.e., the G-dly light that is beyond having a connection to the worlds. And through the service of iskafia and ishapcha we can elicit this light.

The Discourse, in chapter two (the chapter that relates to this year¹⁹) continues with the statement that the service of the Mishkan and Mikdash was the service of iskafia that leads to ishapcha. Thus, one of the services²⁰ in the Holy Temple was the The term used for this elicitation is “istalek”. This word also has the connotation of exaltedness, implying that this revelation is one of exaltedness (Torah Or ad loc.)

sacrificial service. Sacrifices constitute skafia and ishapcha, as will be explained below.

Now there is an obvious connection of this point (that the service of the Mishkan and Mikdash was the service of iskafia and ishapcha) with the statement at the beginning of the discourse. Inasmuch as the essence of the Shechinah was manifested primarily in the Mishkan and Mikdash and since the way to draw the essence of the Shechinah below is through the service of iskafia and ishapcha, it follows then that the primary service of the Mishkan and Mikdash must be iskafia and ishapcha.

However, a novel concept has been introduced in chapter two. In the beginning of the Discourse the focus was on the elicitation of the essence of the Shechinah below (“And I will dwell in them”) through the construction of the Mishkan and Mikdash (“Make for Me a Sanctuary”). In this fit to offer sacrifices in it.” (Rambam, beginning of Hilchos Beis HaBechirah) See chapter three of the series of the original discourse, Basi L’Gani: “The primary service in the Mishkan and Mikdash… the sacrificial service.”

chapter, he adds that the elicitation in the Mishkan and Mikdash (after it was constructed; which superseded the elicitation engendered by the actual construction of the Mishkan) also resulted from the service of iskafia and ishapcha. This explains why the primary service in the Mishkan and Mikdash was the sacrificial service—which exemplifies iskafia and ishapcha.

The Discourse continues: “The sacrificial service is a spiritual service of the soul.” Proof of this he adduces from the participation of the Kohanim and Leviim with their service and song during the offering of the sacrifice. These are spiritual activities. [As explained in several sources: the flow of G-dly light downward—engendered by the sacrifices— was facilitated by the service of the Kohanim, whereas the elevation of the physical through the See (addenda) to Mitteler Rebbe’s Bi’urei HaZohar, Vayeitzei 133a onward. Tzemach Tzedek’s Bi’urei Hazohar ad loc. p. 102. et al.

sacrifices was a result of the song and music of the Leviim.

This point has also been made in discourse entitled Basi L’Gani 5712 (Sefer Hamamarim Melukat, volume 1, p. 19) Based on the above it explains neatly why, in citing the proof from the participation of the Kohanim and Leviim, the Discourse states that “this is a spiritual service, rather than saying “it is a spiritual service of the soul,” or “of the soul of man” (which is the terminology used before and after in the Discourse). This is so because it was the combined effort of the Kohanim and Leviim that was responsible for the downward extension and elevation effects of the actual sacrifices. Thus, the proof from the participation of the Kohanim and Levi’im is restricted to the notion that it is a spiritual service. The proof that there is a parallel spiritual sacrificial service of the soul is from the verse “A person who will offer from you.”

{The Rebbe’s point is that there were two interconnected, but distinct, processes being discussed in the Discourse with regard to sacrifices. First, every sacrifice was not just a gesture of offering something to G-d. A sacrifice caused the generation of spiritual energy in two directions, downward and upward. The downward flow was unleashed by the Kohanim, whose spiritual constitution is chesed-kindness, which involves giving and bestowing. Similarly, the sacrifice would This is consonant with the statement in the Torah:²¹ “A person who will offer from you…” At first glance, it should have said, “One of you who will offer.” This is a hint to the fact that a sacrifice has to come not just from the literal animal but also from you, yourselves (foon aych ah’lane), from the animal within the heart of the person.

It may be suggested that the point made in the Discourse that the sacrificial service is also a spiritual service of the soul [notwithstanding the fact that even the literal sacrificial service is an exercise in ishapcha, whereby the animal whose life bestow spiritual light on the lowly physical world. Leviim, by contrast, personify the faculty of gevurahjudgment that focuses on refining and elevating the world.

There is also a second, related, dynamic discussed in the Discourse. The sacrifice with all of its spiritual effects involved the actual offering of an animal to G-d. There is also an internal offering that parallels the sacrifice that occurs within each and every individual. This is derived from the syntax of the verse that discusses sacrifices as explained in the text.} derives from kelipas nogah is transformed into an offering to G-d—the very idea of transforming darkness into light] relates to the theme in the beginning of the Discourse. There it states that the verse that employs the plural: “Make for Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in them” indicates that the Sanctuary is to be made within each and every Jew.

The corollary of this premise is that the same dynamic that applied to the actual Mishkan applies to the sacrifice of every Jew In the Mishkan and Mikdash, the primary force of elicitation was generated by the sacrificial service²² [despite the fact that the actual construction of the Mikdash elicited an exceedingly lofty G-dly energy—as is indicated in the verse “Make for Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in them,” the word “I” suggesting I Myself— nevertheless the sacrifices elicited an even loftier force].

Tanya chapter 7 in the beginning; beginning of chapter 37, et al.

The same is true with respect to the Sanctuary within each and every Jew. Even after one has engaged in the service of by making himself into a Sanctuary for G-d (“Make for Me a Sanctuary”), which causes G-d to dwell in them (“I will dwell in them”), one has to perform the service implied by the verse, “A person who will offer from you.” This will elicit an even loftier energy—the primary expression of the concept of “And I will dwell in them.” We can now understand why the Discourse, at the end of the chapter, after expounding on the sacrificial order within the human soul, states: “And this is what is says, ‘Make for Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in them.’ Within each and every one…”

{The Rebbe here extends the parallel between the personal sanctuary and the literal one. In the actual Mishkan there were two stages: the actual construction of the Mishkan that elicited G-dly light into this world and the subsequent offering of sacrifices that generated even more sublime energy. Similarly, the internal spiritual Sanctuary that we create within ourselves comes in two stages: first the construction of our inner Sanctuary followed by the offering of a korban, the idea of iskafia and ishapcha.} We can clarify the above by prefacing the statement in the beginning of the Discourse that the service in the Mishkan and Mikdash is the service of iskafia that leads to ishapcha.

Now, in the beginning of the Discourse it states that the service that causes the elicitation of the essence of the Shechinah below is the service of both iskafia and ishapcha. [Although he cites the statement “when the sitra achara is suppressed (iskafia) it generates the glory of G-d in all the worlds,” nevertheless it mentions the two separate approaches of iskafia and ishapcha. Moreover, the greatest emphasis in the beginning of the Discourse is placed on the virtue of ishapcha. When the darkness is transformed into light it causes an increased generation of light.] By contrast, in this chapter (Chapter Two) when discussing the service that was performed in the Mishkan and Mikdash (after its construction) it {Literally: “The other side”. This is Kabbalah terminology for the forces of evil that exist on the other side of holiness.} states: “the service in the Mishkan and Mikdash is the service of iskafia that leads to ishapcha. This matter may be resolved by prefacing one of the explanations given for the preeminent role the sacrifices played in eliciting an even higher G-dly light than that which was elicited by the construction of the Mikdash itself (as was stated above in sec. 5). The explanation is that the construction of the Mikdash exemplified the approach of ishapcha.²³ [The person and the world are transformed into G-dly Sanctuaries.] The innovation of the sacrificial service is that it (also) exemplified the idea of iskafia as will be explained below. And iskafia can elicit an even more exalted This implies that the essential focus here is on iskafia. Note the statement at the end of the chapter: “through his service of iskafia and—what is most essential—that which leads to iskafia. This implies that he is also discussing the concept of iskafia that does not lead to ishapcha.

light than the elicitation that is generated by ishapcha.

With this premise we can provide additional clarity as to why the Discourse devotes extensive elaboration of the sacrificial order within the human soul. The literal offering of sacrifices exemplifies overtly the idea of ishapcha. [The sacrifice involves an animal that derives its sustenance from the forces of kelipas nogah. It is then transformed into becoming a sacrifice for G-d.] The iskafia element of sacrifices is more pronounced and exemplified in the spiritual sacrifice of the person.

To clarify the idea of iskafia as it pertains to the sacrificial order, we must preface that the preeminent value of iskafia over ishapcha is that with ishapcha the thing that is transformed remains intact; what changes is its identity as a holy entity. Iskafia, by contrast, represents the idea of selfabnegation, where one breaks out of his identity.²⁴ Torah Or, Vayakhel 89c-d. Addenda to Torah Or, 114c-d, et al.

This then is the rationale for the premise that the elicitation generated through iskafia is more sublime than the elicitation generated through ishapcha. When a person breaks out of their mold and reverts to a state of ayin-nullity, he arouses and elicits the ultimate ayin—that which transcends existence.²⁵ We can now understand the connection of sacrifice (including the literal ones) with iskafia. A sacrifice involves the elevation from things below to a higher {Perhaps the following analogy can be useful in understanding the difference between ishapcha and iskafia: A private who is promoted to the rank of officer versus a private who is asked to go on a dangerous mission. In the former his identity and role change; there is no need to surrender his life to make that promotion work. in the latter, he must be prepared to give up everything he possesses including his life. The former is an analogy for ishapcha and the latter is an analogy for iskafia} state (as will be explained below sec. 8). This process of elevation entails the nullification of the lower level’s identity as it becomes absorbed within the higher level. [This is what happens in the actual sacrifice of an animal wherein the animal is burnt, consumed and absorbed within the heavenly fire]. This process—whereby an entity is nullified and reverts to naught—is essentially the idea of iskafia.

An additional insight:

This concept [that there is a value to the process of elevation, whereby an independent entity reverts to the state of nullity, that is achieved through sacrifices] is connected to the theme expounded on in the beginning of the discourse. There it stated that the ultimate purpose of creation of all the worlds was for the express purpose of the creation of our lowly world. It is through this process that G-d’s purpose of having a dwelling place in the lowest of worlds can be realized. {The Rebbe will now focus on the role of the higher worlds in the scheme of creation. The Rebbe will demonstrate that although the ultimate purpose of The explanation of the above:

The creation of our lowly world followed the creation of the higher spiritual worlds through which the physical world was created. Shouldn’t G-d have created this world first?

The answer lies in the words “a dwelling place in the lowest realms,” which implies that the lowly creations of this physical world become nullified in their subordination to G-d. This occurs when the lower worlds are created via the higher worlds. When these lowly creations realize that their life force was first contained within the higher realms which then descended below with exponential measures of decline it engenders a feeling of ratzo, a desire to advance forward and rise higher to become absorbed within their source. This takes them out of the parameters of their existence.

creation is for the lowliest world to become a dwelling place for G-d, nevertheless, the higher worlds also play an important role in this process; otherwise G-d would not have created them. And their contribution to the process is exemplified by the elevation of the physical and its nullification that occurs with the offering of the sacrifice.} One may suggest that this concept is alluded to in the principle that “every descent is for the purpose of ascent.” The simple explanation of this principle is that the very purpose of the descent is for the subsequent elevation to a level higher than the one that preceded the descent.

One can add another explanation of this principle. The entire process of the progression of worlds [whereby the lowest physical world’s creation is preceded by the creation of the higher worlds which then descended level by level (from world to world) until the lowly physical world was created] is to allow for the process of elevation; the ratzo-advance and elevation. See Likkutei Torah, Pinchas 77c (likewise in Sefer HaMaamarim 5679 p. 150): “The ultimate goal of the descent is for the purpose of ascent; for the independent entity (the “yesh-existent something”) reverts to ayinnullity.” This process of the yesh becoming ayin is synonymous with ratzo-advance and elevation of that which is below.

{If the creation of the lowliest realms of existence—i.e., our physical world—would have come about by G-d simply decreeing it to exist without the intermediary spiritual world, there would be no way that a lowly The same dynamic we find with regard to the G-dly light that creates all of existence.²⁶ The Light was contained with its Luminary. This Light is even beyond having any connection to the worlds [as is known that the infinite Light that precedes the creature could elevate itself. The creation of the intermediate spiritual worlds that are interlocked with one another and with our physical world, there is room for the person to realize that there is a “beyond.” This realization in turn ignites the passion to want to connect with one’s source. This desire causes the person to desire shedding their own being to become absorbed within their source. When we reach this state of selfabnegation, we can elicit the ultimate transcendent aspect of G-d. Had there been no spiritual level that was connected to us—which would have been the reality had G-d simply decreed our physical existence, we would not know of our Source and we could never disengage ourselves from our awareness of self.} tzimtzum—which, in general terms, is referred to as the Light that is contained within the Luminary—leaves no room or basis for the emergence of worlds]. Only after the process of tzimtzum (where the entire light was first removed) was a streak of light—the kav—extended from the pre-tzimtzum infinite light—that relates to the worlds. Subsequently, there were other processes of tzimtzum and diminutions of the light until it could become a source of creation of all of existence.

{Tzimtzum or contraction is the Arizal’s approach to understanding how finite beings can emerge from an infinite G-d. G-d, as it were, withdrew His light to create a vacuum in which a streak of light was then generated from the withdrawn light to give life to all of existence. The metaphor employed for existence in its pre- Tzimtzum state is the light of the sun (the “luminary” or source of light) as it is still contained within the orb of the sun itself. In that state, the light is totally nullified and cannot be characterized as light. Only after the process of tzimtzum can that light emerge.} Why couldn’t this streak of light that relates to the world be revealed from the very outset? One of the reasons for this process was to endow the creature with the ability to advance and be elevated to become absorbed within the light that is even beyond having a connection to the world. This provides it with the capacity to experience total selfabnegation and surrender to G-d. [As is well known,²⁷ the state of nullification that is generated by having the light that is within the worlds revealed to us is only a state of nullification of an independent entity (Bittul Hayesh-relative nullification). The genuine state of nullification— Bittul B’metzius-absolute and total nullification— derives from the light that is beyond even having a connection to the worlds.]²⁸ {Why couldn’t G-d simply emanate from Himself a force that is commensurate with the limitations of our world?} To clarify this matter more specifically we must preface how the Torah describes the sacrifices as, “a pleasant fragrance.”²⁹ Our Sages commented:³⁰ “It is a source of pleasure for Me that I spoke and My will was fulfilled.” We must understand. That G-d’s will is fulfilled is true about the fulfillment of all the Mitzvos. Yet, this emphasis is mentioned specifically with regard to sacrifices.

diminution is that if G-d would have simply willed existence out of non-existence and not had that light for creation begin within its Source and subsequently contract downward we would not be able to relate to the infinite light. There would be an unbridgeable chasm between the Infinite light and our existence. That would guarantee the status quo of our finite existence and would undermine G-d’s purpose in the creation of the lowly world that it becomes a dwelling place for Him.} The Alter Rebbe explains this matter by way of introduction. Our Sages state:³¹ “Before the world was created only He and His name [existed].” The term “name” here refers to the attribute of malchus, the source of the life-flow and the life-force of all of existence.³² The “name” that preceded creation of the world is the attribute of malchus as it is contained within the Infinite One, may He be blessed. In that state it cannot be characterized as an existence just as the light that is contained within the Luminary does not have any defined existence. Subsequently, the light and radiance spread out to infuse life³³ into all of existence, ex nihilo.

Likkutei Torah, Pinchas ad loc.

nothingness to something” it would have been more appropriate to have employed the term “to create,” (as is indeed mentioned subsequently in LIkkutei Torah ad loc. itself: “the creation from nothingness to something.”).

{The Rebbe’s question is based on the existence of two disparate G-dly forces within creation: The force that is responsible for matter to emerge from absolute nothingness and the life-force that infuses life into that existence. The analogy for these two dynamics is the body that exists and is also infused with a soul. The soul does not create the body; it gives it life. Thus, the question is, why does the Alter Rebbe speak about creation ex nihilo which applies t the act of creation itself, and yet follows it up with the words, “to give life to” which applies to the second force.

The answer, given below, is that the discussion in Likkutei Torah revolves around the effects of the descent of the light. There is a greater reaction that we have to the light that gives life when it descends than there is to the light that creates when it descends.

The reason for this distinction is that one cannot detect the presence of the creative force, since creation of something out of nothing implies that there is something new and detached from its source. The lifforce, by contrast, is a part of the consciousness of the person and when one realizes that their own life-force is The Alter Rebbe elaborates: The reason the light descended from its original state (incorporated within the Infinite One) is for the purpose of its in truth an infinite force—that was diminished in the process of entering the person—one develops a yearning to be reconnected with, and absorbed in, one’s infinite source of life.

In the Rebbe’s own words:}

Perhaps, one may answer that this process of elevation of the creation (where it advances and elevated to, and absorbed within, G-dliness) that results from the [reaction to the] descent of the light, is more relevant to the descent of the light that is intended for giving life to the creatures.* The explanation of this distinction is that when the G-dly light creates something it is a new existence, whereas the life force within creation implies that the life force of all the creation is a G-dly life force. When one meditates on the idea that the very life-force of the creation is (essentially) infinite (and its finite nature is a product of the descent), this has the capacity to arouse the feeling of ratzo and longing to be absorbed within the light, the way it was before its descent.

*This is so notwithstanding the fact that the light that creates all of existence also goes through the process of descent (See Hemshech 5672, volume 2, p. 395ff. et al.).

elevation; that from the yesh-an existent entity there should become ayin-nullity. This means that the yesh should truly become nullified and absorbed within the Infinite Light.

With this premise he explains why the phrase “a pleasant fragrance” is mentioned only in regard to sacrifices (the world nichoach-fragrant is cognate to the word nachas-pleasure that derives from satisfaction). This is because the primary cause of satisfaction and delight above is when the yesh-an existent entity is nullified and reverts to the state of ayin-nothingness. And this nullification process is most pronounced in the offering of sacrifices. For the sacrificial service entails the elevation of that which is below upward; wherein the lower levels of existence break out of their mold and rise (and become contained within) that which is above (as will be explained below).

An additional concept: In addition to the elevation of the sacrifice itself—where the animal that is offered on the altar would be burnt (its existence nullified) and incorporated within the heavenly See Likkutei Torah, Pinchas 77c-d for a discussion of all that follows.

fire—it also had an uplifting effect on the supernal angels. This is based on the verse: “My offering, My bread as My fire-offering.” The words “My fire- [offering]” are a reference to the seraphim angels³⁴ for whom the offering is their bread. It gives them increased power and life to enable them to become nullified and absorbed in the Infinite Light to the extent of being “drawn into³⁵ the body of the King.”

This explains the significance of the song that accompanied the offering of the sacrifices, for every state of elevation comes through song. As our Sages state:³⁶ “All that possess a shir [lit. masters of shir] go out with a shir and are drawn by the shir.”³⁷ Pinchas 28:2.

Likkutei Torah³⁸ citing Likkutei Amarim of the Magid of Mezritch interprets the words “masters of shir” as a reference to the angels.³⁹ [This to the angels, and that going out refers to the process of elevation.} interpretation is connected to the literal meaning of the word shir that it is a reference to the collar placed around the neck of animals,⁴⁰ for angels are also called animals and beasts.⁴¹] The meaning of “go out with a shir” thus is that through the song that the angels sing they go out of their parameters⁴² to be absorbed in the Infinite Light of G-d.

An additional insight: The fact that sacrifices involve the process of elevation is also related to their very with shir…their elevation is through melody and song.” However, in many other sources it applies the term “masters of song” to the angels. Sefer HaMaamrim 5678 p. 95 states that although the elevation of the souls is also through song, the appellation “masters of song” refers exclusively to the angels. Perhaps the abovementioned statement of Sefer HaSichos 5703 that mentions both angels and souls refers to the concept (of elevation through song) but not to the title “masters of song.”

name which is korban. [Particularly, in light of the teaching of the Ba’al Shem Tov (on the verse:⁴³ “Forever G-d, Your words⁴⁴ stand in the heavens”), that the name of everything in the Holy Tongue is not only descriptive of its function but is also representative of its G-dly life force.] The word korban is cognate to the word kiruv,⁴⁵ implying that it is what draws one close to G-d. This is indicative of the concept of elevation.⁴⁶In the Begiining of Shaar Hayichud Vo’he’emunah reverse movement from “above below” one’s attachment to G-dliness derives from G-d’s closeness to him. However, the idea that a korban is connected with coming close (that he gets close to G-d) implies that he goes out of his own domain (existence) and is incorporated within G-dliness.⁴⁷ One can find a connection between this idea and that which is stated in Likkutei Torah⁴⁸that the word lihakriv-to bring close shares the same letters the other is where we get close to G-d. These two methods are described as “from above below” and “from below above.” The Rebbe now stresses that the Korban is the closeness that comes from the person. This conclusion will become apparent in the next few paragraphs.} as the word l’harkiv-to decompose. When something decays it is the ultimate expression of nullification.

One may suggest the following explanation of this matter. When one offers a korban it elevates him to the level of G-d’s infinite light that utterly transcends the worlds. [Indeed, even more so. As the Zohar, cited in Pri Etz Chaim,⁴⁹ states:⁵⁰ “To what extent does the desire of sacrifices rise? Higher and higher to the ain sof.”]⁵¹ Thus, the state of nullification through sacrifices is identified as “decomposition”—utter nullification.

The same can be said concerning the sacrificial service as it pertains to the human being⁵² that is This is evident from the abovementioned citation (above sec. 8) in Likkutei Torah, Pinchas: “only He and His name.”

expressed in the wording of the verse—“A person who shall offer from you.” The purpose of the descent of the soul down below is for the purpose of ascent; so that the soul is elevated above and departs from its existence and becomes incorporated in the infinite light of G-d.

This process of elevation occurs during prayer inasmuch as prayers were enacted to substitute for sacrifices.⁵³ This is consonant with the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov⁵⁴ that emerging alive after prayer defies the laws of nature. The “powerful meditations”⁵⁵ of prayer should have engendered the expiration of the soul. That a person stays alive after prayer is not based on nature but is rather due to G-d’s great kindness.

sacrifices.” One may suggest that the reference in the beginning of that discourse (77c) that states that the descent of the soul is for the purpose of elevation, alludes to the spiritual process of sacrifices.

One may suggest that the reason the “powerful meditations” of prayer will, insofar as nature is concerned, lead to the expiration of the soul is because prayer is essentially a process of elevation, to the point where the person goes out of the parameters of his existence to become incorporated in the infinite light of G-d. This is analogous to the sacrifice which was consumed by fire and incorporated in the heavenly fire.

This is what our Sages stated: One should not arise to pray other than from amidst heaviness of head.” Rashi⁵⁶ explains that it means “submission and humility.” This follows from the above that prayer entails going out of the parameters of one’s existence and to be incorporated within the infinite light of G-d; utter nullification. Therefore, even the Berachos 30b..

preparation for prayer must involve a process of nullification.

The difference between the nullification before prayer and that which occurs in prayer is that during prayer one generates a sense of nullification because of his closeness to G-dliness. The person senses the lofty and exalted state of the infinite light of G-d and therefore wants to become a part of that.

By contrast, the state of nullification that occurs before praying is generated by a sense of brokenheartedness from the realization of how distant he is from G-d. Thus, the state of nullification during prayer is the “expiration of the soul;” its desire to become incorporated within the infinite light of G-d, whereas the nullification before prayer is the state of submission and humility.

The Mitteler Rebbe, in his discourse on the verse “After G-d your G-d you shall walk,” and likewise Published in his work Shaarei Teshuvah, volume 1 (Shaar Hatefilah) 22d ff. See there chapter 2 (23, end of side c).

the Tzemach Tzedek in his discourse on this verse explain that the reason submission and humility is a fitting preparation for prayer is connected to the saying of our Sages⁵⁷ “whoever humbles himself G-d will raise up.”

One may suggest that LIkkutei Torah’s association of the word lihakriv (to offer) with l’harkiv (to decompose) in that they share the same letters alludes to the state of nullification that precedes prayer.⁵⁸ The nullification in the “decomposition” process represents a loss of his identity even as it serves as a prelude and a catalyst to subsequent growth—analogous to [that which is said concerning] the state of humility before prayer (that it causes G-d to uplift him during prayer).

Published in Or HaTorah (Parshas R’ei) p. 686ff. See there p. 687.

Now concerning the state of submission and humility there are two mediations:

In the aforementioned discourse of the Mitteler Rebbe⁵⁹ it is explained that in order to come to this state of submission and humility one must meditate on one’s utter lowliness and on the great distance that exists between him and G-d etc. Moreover, this introspective meditation must be meticulous [lit. “with good and meticulous accounting”⁶⁰] These people who engage in this type of meditation are called “masters of accounting.”

[One may suggest that the statement that the accounting must be meticulous is similar to that which is expounded on at length in his Sha’ar Hayichud⁶¹ that when the meditation is of a general nature his understanding of the subject is superficial and one can easily delude oneself. To gain a genuine and deep, one’s meditation must involve the details.

{that precedes the prayer}

However, after one has meditated on the details he must examine and reflect on the general theme. [He mentions there that this is what his father (the Alter Rebbe ) explicitly received from the Maggid.] It may be suggested that the choice of the terminology concerning the meditation that it must be “with good and meticulous accounting” is to suggest that one must meditate on the details. Besides the fact that, accounting, by definition, generally implies counting details, a “meticulous accounting” suggests a precise counting of every detail.]⁶² The Tzemach Tzedek, in the foregoing discourse, adds⁶³ that the term “masters of accounting” is At the end of the chapter (5a).

related our Sages’⁶⁴ commentary on the verse⁶⁵ “Come unto Cheshbon”: “Come let us make an accounting of this world.” This refers to the accounting concerning the very purpose of the descent in creation and the ultimate purpose of the descent of his soul to this world; that the descent is for the purpose of ascent. When a person reflects on the fact that he does not fulfill his purpose for which his soul descended below it will make him humble.

The difference between these two approaches⁶⁶ is that the reason this meditation—that the humility (the “heavy head” that precedes the prayers) comes in the text itself the explanation accords with that of the MItteler Rebbe in his Sha’ar Hatefilah..

from meditating on one’s utter lowliness and the great distance between him and G-d—is a preparation for the prayers because one can attain lofty heights through the state of self-abnegation, for “whoever humbles himself G-d will raise up.” By contrast—the approach that humility derives from reflecting on the idea that the descent must be for the purpose of ascent—is a preparation for the prayers not only because of the virtue of selfabnegation. It goes beyond that. This meditation of humility is itself related to the idea of prayer.

The rationale for this is that in order for a person to feel the descent (and that its purpose is for the sake of subsequent elevation) he must possess a feeling of the lofty and phenomenal nature of G- dliness. The more one appreciates the loftiness of G- d the more he will feel the extent of the descent. And since one’s humility derives from his recognition that he did not fulfill the purpose for which his soul descended, it follows that the feeling {See f. 86} of the sublime nature of G-d is somewhat inherent in that humility. Note the words of the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch⁶⁷ that before prayer one must reflect on the exaltedness of G-d, may He be blessed, and the lowliness of man. One may suggest that the meditation concerning man’s lowliness is not an independent meditation. It follows from and is a consequence of the mediation concerning G-d’s exaltedness.⁶⁸ {One must have some modicum of appreciation for the greatness of G-d to feel this form of humility. And as the Rebbe will explain shortly, this makes the meditation itself that precedes prayer an integral part of prayer, not just a prepatory exercise.} Based on the above it follows that the “heavy head” state of mind that precedes and is a preparation for prayer is not only because of the virtue of selfabnegation but also because in that “heavy head” there is a sensation of the exaltedness of G-d, the very concept of prayer.

The difference between this preparation and prayer itself is that this meditation concerning the exaltedness of G-d is directed towards the appreciation for the lowliness of man, which is why, in fact, it does lead to submission and humility. The meditation of prayer itself by contrast, is purely about the exaltedness of G-d and the state of selfabnegation that ensues from this meditation is (not submission and humility but rather) that he becomes absorbed and incorporated within G- dliness (as was mentioned above, sec. 9).

And additional insight:

The difference between the meditation that precedes the prayers and the meditation during prayer relates to the concept of G-d’s exaltedness itself. As stated above, the state of self-abnegation that one experiences during prayer is total (analogous to the sacrifice that was totally consumed in the heavenly fire). This is the state of the “expiration of the soul (as was discussed above (sec. 5) concerning the Ba’al Shem Tov). This state of total nullification is achieved because the mediation of prayer (specifically the reading of the Shema) focuses on the infinite light of G-d that is beyond having any connection to the world. In relation to this awareness “everything before Him is as nothing.”⁶⁹ This is the meditation on the words “G-d is one.”⁷⁰ {In the preceding section the distinction between the meditation about G-d greatness before prayer and during prayer is that the meditation before prayer focuses on G-d’s greatness as a medium to attain a state of humility, whereas the meditation of G-d’s greatness during prayer is purely about His greatness. In this section, the Rebbe demonstrates that the meditations themselves are about different aspects of G-d’s greatness.} The Rebbe Maharash expounds on the meaning of the concept of “one” that is analogous to the concept of “You are one but not in the numerical sense.”⁷¹ He explains that we can quantify something in terms of one thing being quantitatively or qualitatively greater than another only where the two things being contrasted are within range of each other, wherein it can be said that one is greater than the other. For example: the world of Atzilus as compared with the worlds of BY”A⁷² that are comparable. [This is so despite the existence of a Sefer HaMaamarim 5627, p. 137. The discussion there concerns the subject of “prayer was instituted as a substitute for sacrifices.”

parsa (curtain) between Atzilus and BY”A. Nevertheless, the creation of chochma of Atzilus from chochma of By’a occurs when chochma of BY”A cloaks itself within the parsa and causes the creation of chochma of Beriah.⁷³] Thus it is possible to quantify the preeminence of Atzilus relative to BY”A.

However, with respect to the infinite light of G-d, it is impossible to make any comparisons. The infinite light of G-d is incomparably greater than all the worlds (including Atzilus). The creation of all these worlds has to go through the process of tzimtzum, {Just as the curtain screens the light—not only diminishing it but altering its nature—so too the lower worlds of BY”A are qualitatively removed from the exalted state of G-dly perception in the higher world of Atzilus.} which is a process in which the light is concealed. On that plane there is no basis for quantification. Thus, it is said: “You are one but not in the numerical sense.”⁷⁴ Meditating on this thought generates a feeling of love that is expressed in the verse “Whom⁷⁵ do I have in heaven? And when I am with You I desire nothing on earth.” At this point, one no longer desires the lower level of Gan Eden (earth) neither the upper level (heaven); only G-d Himself. This is what the Alter Rebbe would say:⁷⁶ “I want nothing. I Ibid.

want not Your Gan Eden, I don’t want Your Worldto-Come, I want you, and You alone.”

The Discourse⁷⁷ continues:

The usage of the term “desire” in the verse “and when I am with You I desire nothing,” as opposed to the word ratzon-want, is because “want” can also express one’s external will. Even an expression of will that comes through coercion can be characterized as ratzon, as in: “he is coerced⁷⁸ until he says ‘Rotzeh Ani-‘I want’.”⁷⁹ The term cheifetz by contrast connotes an inner desire.⁸⁰ the light (even the light that preceded the tzimtzum¸ including the most sublime levels of that light). His desire was G-d’s very Essence—“only You, exclusively.”

Thus, when it says, “and when I am with You I desire nothing,” it suggests that the external will does exist for the manifestations of G-d that form the entire structure of worlds (Hishtalshelus)⁸¹. The it only because he was coerced into it. And because he says “I want” (employing a Torah expression) it proves that this too is considered ratzon-will.

inner will, however, desires only the essence of the infinite light of G-d.

One may suggest that the reason for wanting the G- dly manifestations that form the order of hishtalshelus is because it is analogous to the way the creation of the world occurs from on High to the levels below. The creation of this lowly world from G-d’s essence goes through the mediation of G-dly manifestations, including the manifestations that are part of hishtalshelus.⁸² devolve from one another. The lower worlds “devolve” from the next higher world, et al, until this physical world emerges. The Rebbe is stating here that although the Alter Rebbe’s desire was for G-d Himself who transcends the entire hishtalshelus he did want to connect to the spiritual levels that represent manifestations of G-d and not His essence. As will be explained, these levels are necessary, though they are not the ultimate goal.} The same can be said for the process of elevation upward. One’s elevation to and incorporation in the essence of the infinite light of G-d goes through the medium of the manifestations of hishtalshelus. He therefore wants these manifestations, although his desire for them is an external expression of his will; merely as a means to reach the goal, the essence of the infinite light of G-d.

It should be noted, however, that in several sources⁸³ (in an exposition of the verse:⁸⁴ “I desire kindness, not an offering,”) there is a suggestion that cheifetz, the inner desire applies only to kindness; the extension of G-d’s beneficence below. This is in contrast to the will G-d has for the offerings—which involves the process of elevation upward—is only an expression of His external will.

our lowly physical world. The same is true of the soul’s ascending to become one with its source, the essence of G-d; it goes through the entire order of hishtalshelus to climb through all these progressive levels of Divine manifestations on its way to unite with G-d’s essence}.

It serves as a medium to facilitate the downward flow of His beneficence, which results from the process of elevation. This is at variance with the discussion in this discourse⁸⁵ that suggests that the inner desire of a Jew [which is reflection of how it is Above; for the Jewish people are G-d’s children, and the will of the {According to these sources, G-d’s inner desire and will is for a one way flow of Divine beneficence downward as an expression of G-d’s kindness. While it is true that G-d also wants the upward movement of energy that is generated through sacrifices, however, that movement is only a means to an end; the end being another downward flow of Divine energy. This is at variance with the discussion of the Rebbe Maharash’s discourse cited here, where this process of elevation that defines the purpose of a sacrifice is also an expression of G-d’s inner desire. Now, the Rebbe Maharash is discussing the inner desire of the person below, whereas the sources cited here deal with G-d’s inner desire. This challenge is anticipated by the Rebbe, who explains here that our desires mirror G-d’s because we are His children. If it is our inner desire then it should also be G-d’s. The Rebbe does not provide a reconciliation of these variant sources.} child is the will of the father], is inherent in the process of elevation from below as well.

The Discourse continues:

Despite the fact that the love expressed in the verse “Whom do I have in heaven? And when I am with You I desire nothing on earth” is primarily that of the G-dly soul, however, through lengthy meditation even the animal soul will accede to this.

This is why, after the recitation of “Shema Yisrael- Hear O Israel…G-d is one,” it says, “And you shall love G-d your G-d with all your heart” which is interpreted to mean with both inclinations.⁸⁶ When the G-dly soul (“Hear O Israel) meditates on the concept of echad-one—“You are one but not in the numerical sense”—the animal soul too will come to love G-d this way.

{ibid.}

This is as the Rebbe Rashab explains in his Hemshech-Series 5666⁸⁷ that when the G-dly soul understands and grasps the concept of G-d’s oneness it has an effect on the animal soul, at least to the extent that it understands the compelling reason to accept this premise although it does not grasp the idea itself.

The Rebbe Rashab (in the abovementioned series of 5666) adds another insight: Since the G-dly soul inserts itself within the animal soul, its fiery flashes therefore consumes the animal soul as well.

One could add another insight: When the animal soul is incorporated within and consumed by the fiery flashes of the G-dly soul, it elicits a more sublime revelation than that which is elicited by the love of the G-dly soul. As explained in the series of discourses of the Hilulo:⁸⁸ The service of iskafia and ishapcha generate a light that manifests itself in all worlds equally, which is the light that transcends all of the worlds. [It should be noted, that this concept⁸⁹ is discussed in the series even at the end and seal of chapter two in the context of the statement that the animal soul is elevated and incorporated within the fiery flashes of the G-dly soul.⁹⁰] {The process of iskafia and ishapcha, suppressing and transforming the evil within us, respectively, are, by definition, efforts that involve the animal soul. And it is through those efforts, specifically, that generate the “light that is equal in all worlds,” i.e., the most transcendent of lights. This cannot be achieved just by the G-dly souls passion for G-d.} By virtue of our actions and service throughout the period of exile—when the service of iskafia and ishapcha are most pronounced—we can elicit the essence of the Shechinah below even more so than it was expressed in the Beis Hamikdash. The difference is that now it is all concealed, to be revealed in the future age of Redemption.

May it be His will that truly, very soon, we will see the fulfillment of that which is stated in this week’s parsha:⁹¹ “And the children of Israel left with an outstretched hand,” and with a “head held high.”⁹² May all this happen, literally, soon!

See Tanya, beginning of Chapter 37.

Translated with an introduction and notes by Rabbi Heschel Greenberg, from Ma’amarim of the Rebbe, Volume One: Basi L’Gani (Jewish Discovery Center).

{The word Hilula (which means wedding) is used to describe the passing of a Tzadik at which time the soul reunites with its Maker, the phrase Baal HaHiula literally means :the master of the wedding;” which, in Chassidic parlance refers to the person whose passing we are observing.} ↩
{Literally: His ascent; a term used for the passing of a righteous person.} ↩
Yechezkal 33:24. ↩
Vayikra Rabbah 29, 11. ↩
This in contrast to Mattan Torah – See below sec. 2. ↩
Terumah 25, 8. ↩
This interpretation is cited in Likkutei Torah (beginning of Parshas Naso 20, end of side b) attributing it to “Our Sages of blessed memory.” See ↩
Tehillim 37, 29. ↩
See Matnat Kehunah and Maharzav on Bamidbar Rabbah 13, 2. Maharzav on Bereishit Rabbah 19, 7. ↩
So it is cited throughout the entire series of Hilula discourses. See discourse s.v. Basi L’Gani 5728, n. 27-28 (Sefer HaMa’amarim Melukat vol. 2. p. 240) ↩
The question is more pronounced considering that the Midrash explains the Biblical verse before it states that the dwelling of the Shechinah occurred with the ↩
Yeshayahu 60:21. ↩
{Whereas the Midrash discusses the idea of the righteous bringing the Shechinah down below in the context of Moses—who brought the Shechinah down below through the construction of the physical Sanctuary—the Discourse understands that the credit due to the righteous extends to everyone who creates a Sanctuary within himself and through himself to the entire world.} ↩
Tanchuma, Va’eira 15. Shemos Rabbah 12:3. et al. ↩
{The point made here is that both Mattan Torah and the Mishkan share the characteristic of bringing the Shechinah down below. And in both situations, it was Moses who made that happen. However, the construction of the Mishkan was a human act, whereas Mattan Torah was a G-dly initiative. In terms of changing the world the former has a more powerful and lasting impact.} ↩
{In the original Basi L’Gani Discourse there is a discussion of the two modes of G-dly light. One is called memalle kol almin-the light that fills and permeates all of the worlds, and the other is called sovev kol alminthat which “surrounds” or encompasses all of the worlds. Surrounding and encompassing imply that this light is too intense for any of the worlds to internalize and is as elusive from the highest world as it is from the lowest. However, when we engage in iskafia we can even ↩
See, at length, discourse Basi L’gani 5111 ↩
See Tanya, end of chapter 27. Likkutei Torah beginning of Parshas Bechokosei (based on Zohar 128b. See also there 67b. 184b). Torah Or, Vayakhel 89d. Likkutei Torah, Chukas 65c. ↩
5732 (the year this discourse was delivered) – is the second year of study of the second cycle. This year (5752) we learn this chapter of the series of discourses for the third time—See “foreword” of the discourse of the same title 5728 (Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, volume 2p. 238). ↩
It may be suggested that by “one of the services” he means one of the unique and essential services in the Mikdash (Note the Tosphos s.v. ad achas – Menachos 18a.) This is based on the fact that the objective of the Beis Hamikdash is to construct: “A house for G-d that is ↩
Vayikra 1:2. ↩
This is borne out of the fact that the Mikdash is a “House that is fit to offer sacrifices in it.” (as mentioned above, f. 22). ↩
This clarifies why in chapters three and five it mentions only ishapcha since the discussion there revolves around the construction of the Mishkan. ↩
Ibid. ↩
Ibid. {Our ability as finite human beings to nullify our existence is empowered by that aspect of G-d that is considered to be a “nullity” as it were because it is out of bounds of the realm of something-ness; it utterly transcends reality the way we know it.} ↩
Regarding the descent of the Light [the descent of the pre-Tzimtzum light where it was subsumed within its source; and likewise the decline that affected the Light after the first Tzimtzum] see Likkutei Torah, ad loc. Sefer HaMaaamrim 5679 ad loc. (p. 179ff), 5688 ad loc. (end of p. 142ff). ↩
See Kuntres Etz HaChaim chapter 6. Hemshech 5666, p. 436. Et al. ↩
{The answer to the question as to why there was a need for the light to exist originally within the Divine Source and then undergo various processes of ↩
Vayikra 1:9. ↩
Rashi ad loc. Sifri (cited by Rashi) on Pinchas 28:8. See also Rashi, Tetzaveh 29:25. ↩
Pirkei D’R.Eliezer Chapter 3. ↩
{A name is the instrument through which a person is known to the outside. One does not need a name for oneself. Likewise, the attribute of Malchus, which means kingship, is G-d’s attribute of projection, where He projects His energy to the outside, i.e., the creation and sustaining of the lower worlds.} ↩
Likkutei Torah uses the term “to give life to.” One would have thought that when discussing creation “from ↩
{The word seraphim actually relates to the world fire.} ↩
Zohar I, 217b. ↩
Shabbos 51b (in the Mishnah). ↩
{In the context of the Mishnah, the word shir refers to a collar worn around the neck of animals, and the issue is whether one may allow the animal to go out of a private domain into the public domain with this collar on Shabbos. The interpretation given here is that the word shir refers to song and the animals are references ↩
Beracha 98a. ↩
Likkutei Torah, Beracha ad loc. states that the elevation of souls is also aided by the medium of song. Perhaps, it may be suggested that the reason our Sages apply the words, “masters of shir go out with shir” specifically to angels** (who are called animals and beasts) is because the angels’ elevation involves breaking out of the confining character of their bodies. By contrast souls [who do not possess bodies, as explained in Likkutei Torah ad loc.] need to go through the process of elevation only because their comprehension is inherently limited. The foregoing saying of our Sages that speaks of “going out with song” discusses, specifically, the process of breaking out of the bounds of the body. [This parallels the literal meaning of “going out” that involves going out of the location where one was situated (not going out of oneself).] And this form of elevation of “going out with song” therefore applies exclusively to angels (“Masters of shir”) and not to souls. ** Sefer HaSichos 5703 p. 11 cites the Alter Rebbe’s saying that “All masters of shir, souls and angels go out ↩
Rashi ad loc. ↩
Tanya, beginning of chapter 39. Eta al. ↩
{Literally: “their vessels.”) ↩
Tehillim 119:89. ↩
{The meaning of “your words” according to the Baal Shem Tov is that the words with which G-d created the heavens (and likewise all other creation) are continuously being generated to create them. These words that represent G-d’s creative power are the names, in the Holy Tongue, given to each creature. Hence the name given to something in the Torah represents its very life-force and is therefore descriptive of it very nature and function unlike the names given to things in other languages.} ↩
See Sefer Habahir 46 (109) referenced in Sefer Hamamarim Melukat I volume 2, p. 122, f. 15. ↩
{The Rebbe will now explain that there are two ways of getting to G-d: one is where G-d gets close to us and ↩
{When G-d gets close to us, it does not necessarily imply that we change and become absorbed in the G-dly light. We can experience a momentary high and be uplifted but it will not endure because we have not changed. However, when getting close to G-d is a product of our own efforts it allows us to become absorbed within G-d’s infinite light.} ↩
Chukas 57b (from Pri Etz Chaim Portal 5 (Shaar Olam Ho’asiyah) chapter 3. ↩
Shaar Aleph (Shaar Hatefilah, chapter 5. ↩
See Zohar II 239a. III 26a. ↩
{Not only does the korban transport us to the infinite light of the ain sof, but to the ain sof itself that transcends its infinite light.} ↩
See Likkutei Torah, Pinchas ad loc., beginning of chapter 3 (78a): “based on the above we can apply this concept to prayer that were enacted as substitutes for ↩
Berachos 26b. ↩
Tzavaas Harivash (Kehot edition) sec.35. ↩
This is the terminology used in Tzavaas Harivash there. ↩
In several Chassidic sources it cites the words “submission and humility.” (Sefer HaMaamarim 5665, end of p. 194. 5678, beginning of p. 94. 5707, p. 203. et al.). However in our texts of Rashi the word “humility” does not appear. Perhaps the word humility that is cited in Chassidic texts is intended as a clarification of the idea of submission. ↩
Eiruvin 13b. ↩
See also Or HaTorah ad loc.: the heavy head that precedes prayer is the concept of decomposition that precedes the growth of vegetation. ↩
Chapter 3 (23d). ↩
{Below, the Rebbe will elaborate on this repetitive expression.} ↩
Chapter 4. ↩
{The Rebbe means to distinguish between accounting merely to ascertain the quantity of what it is that’s being counted versus the process whereby every detail is scrutinized for its quality as well. This is analogous to the difference between on who checks inventory to know how many products you have and one who tells you the quality of each product.} ↩
in the “summary” that is published in Or HaTorah ad loc., in the margin at the bottom of the page). However ↩
Bava Basra 78b. ↩
Chukas 21:27. ↩
{i.e., the difference between the approach of the Mitteler Rebbe, who focuses on the meditation that concerns one’s distance from G-d and the Tzemach Tzedek’s approach that focuses on the purpose of our soul’s descent. Both of these meditation lead a person to a sense of humility that is necessary as a preparation for prayer.} ↩
Orach Chaim, Hilchos Tefilah 98:1. ↩
Note the words of the Rema, Orach Chaim, ad loc.: “…and about the lowliness of man.” One may suggest that the expression “about the lowliness” implies that the meditation of the exaltedness of G-d and the meditation of the lowliness of man are two separate (but equal) matters. The Alter Rebbe therefore writes “and the lowliness.” ↩
See Likkutei Torah, Pinchas, cited in f. 78. ↩
{Ibid.} ↩
Tikkunei Zohar (Pasach Eliyahu) 17a. ↩
{This is a reference to the three spiritual worlds of Beriyah, Yetzirah and Asiya that are qualitatively lower than the highest world of Atzilus. They differ as to the degree of appreciating G-d’s absolute unity. In Atzilus there is no room for anything else, even a dependent, existence. It is known as the world of total unity. By contrast, the lower three worlds—in varying degree recognize their own existence. They vary insofar as their recognition of their dependence on and subservience to G-d.} ↩
Torah Or, Vayeira 14:c – cited in Sefer HaMaamrim 5627 ad loc. {In other words, notwithstanding the major transformation that takes place in the transition from chochma of Atzilus to chochma of BY”A, nevertheless, chochma of BY”A is still chochma; they still have something in common} ↩
{Generally, when the term “one” is used, it suggests that there is number two that follows, albeit far behind. With respect to the oneness of the infinite light of G-d, that relative concept of oneness does not apply.} ↩
Tehillim 73:25. ↩
Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefilah of Tzemach Tzedek, chapter 40 (138, end of side a). It may be suggested that the idea of “and what is with You I do not desire” that is discussed in Sefer HaMaamrim 5627 ad loc. relates to the person’s passion to the infinite light of G-d, that all the worlds are incomparable to (as explained here in the text). When the Alter Rebbe exclaimed, “I want only You exclusively,” he was saying that he does not even desire ↩
Sefer Hama’amarim ad loc. p. 138. ↩
Toras Kohanim and Rashi’s commentary on Vayikra 1:3. Erachin 21a (in the Mishnah). ↩
This proof is also found in Likkutei Torah, Sir Hashirim 28d: The fact that it states that “he is coerced until he says ‘I want.’” Proves that will that derives from coercion is still called will. There is no contradiction to that which Rambam writes (Hilchos Geirushin end of Chapter 2) that this is his true will and desire – because in his mind he thinks that he want ↩
{Rambam, based on the Talmud, discusses the person who is legally obligated to give his wife a divorce and refuses to do so. He may be coerced by the Jewish courts to acquiesce to their demand by using force. When he says, “I want,” the divorce may be processed. It is clear that his will that he expresses is not what he desires; but nevertheless it may be categorized as will. Another less dramatic example would be a person who is “forced” to sell his house because he is strapped for cash. Though he goes through a perfectly legal transaction that he cannot renege on because he ultimately expressed his consent to it, it is certainly not something he desires. It is ratzon and not chefetz.} ↩
{In Kabbalah and in Chassidic literature, the entire system of worlds and levels (Sefiros-Divine attributes) within the worlds, before and after the tzimtzum-the contraction of G-d’s infinite light, are all collectively referred to as “seder hishtalshelus.” This phrase connotes the chain of interlocking links of spiritual levels that vary in their proximity to G-d and that ↩
{In other words, G-d chose to create our world through a process. While He could have just created it without the need for intermediary spiritual worlds, He nevertheless chose to make it happen through these worlds that reflect different and regressive levels of G- dly light that descend level by level to give expression to ↩
See Sefer HamMa’amarim Melukat, volume 5, p. 181, and the source cited there. ↩
Hoshea 6:6. ↩
{of the Rebbe Maharash, cited in f. 114.} ↩
Va’eschanan 6:5. Berachos 54a. (In the Mishnah). Sifri (cited by Rashi) on that verse. ↩
P. 135. ↩
{A reference to the series of discourses of Basi L’gani} ↩
{that iskafia and ishapcha generate the transcendent light} ↩
{AT that point it seems that the emphasis is on the benefits that accrue to the animal soul by virtue of its elevation into the G-dly soul. However, by repeating, in that discussion, the idea concerning the role of iskafia and ishapcha in eliciting the transcendent light it thus implies that the G-dly soul is also a beneficiary with its engagement with the animal soul for it can then attain an enhanced revelation of G-dly light.} ↩
Beshallach 14:8. ↩
Targum Onkeles ad loc. See Likkutei Sichos, volume 3, p. 874: The name of the Ba’al Hahilulo is hinted in the word “b’reish”, see there at length. ↩

Introduction

The Ma’amar

Footnotes

Keep reading

Get a weekly dose of inspiration in your inbox.