Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 57ff.

I

As mentioned on frequent occasions, it is doubtful that [any of] the names of the weekly Torah portions are cited in the Talmud.[1] [In contrast, all of the names of the books of the Tanach are mentioned in that source.[2] And similarly, the Mishnah[3] and the Gemara[4] refer to the names of almost all the tractates of the Talmud].[5] Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the names of the weekly portions are [rooted in our] Torah [heritage]. [Indeed,] for over a thousand years,[6] it has been Jewish custom to use these names to refer to these portions.[7]

A conclusion can certainly be drawn from a comparison [to the following law]: With regard to [the establishment of a person's identity so that] his name may be used on a legal document, there is an affirmed decision in Torah law that a name which a person has been known to use for 30 days, is his name.[8] How much more so then, with regard to the names of the Torah portions which have been known to be used for over a thousand years, and have been used by the leaders and teachers of the Jewish people, must we conclude that the association between these names and the weekly Torah portions is [not merely a factor of coincidence, but rather] stems from our Torah heritage.

Accordingly, one may conclude that the name which [our] Torah [heritage] has determined for a particular reading reflects the inner content of the entire reading.[9] We are forced to accept this conclusion even if one will say that the names of the Torah readings were chosen [merely] because these are the first words of that passage.[10] For in practice, (according to the Torah,) these are the names by which the entire Torah reading is called. {And with regard to the Torah, one cannot say that this is simply a matter of coincidence, for even with regard to worldly matters, there is nothing that happens solely by chance.[11]} Thus we must assume that the name of a Torah reading carries within it the inner message of the entire reading.[12]

This concept can be applied to this week's Torah reading, Parshas Lech Lecha. All of the points which are later mentioned in the Torah reading - even the last verse - share the same message - Lech Lecha - "Go for yourself."[13]

II

For a Jew (beginning from the first Jew, Avraham, [whose Divine service is described in] our Torah reading), halichah (Lech) - literally going, [in this context, progress] - indicates advancing towards the fundamental purpose of his creation which is [- in the Mishnah's words[14] -] "to serve My Creator," i.e., to progress higher in his Divine service. Certainly, this applies with regard to the directive to be taken from the phrase Lech Lecha,[15] which can be interpreted [on the non-literal level of Derush] as "Go to yourself,"[16] i.e., Avraham our Patriarch was commanded to proceed to the essence of his being, the very root of his soul. Certainly, progress of this nature points toward a very high ascent.

The above, however, raises a question: This concept appears to characterize the beginning of the Torah reading which relates that Avraham carried out [G-d's] command:[17] "Go for yourself from your land, from your birthplace, and from your father's home" and journeyed to Eretz Yisrael. And within Eretz Yisrael itself, he was "journeying steadily to the south,"[18] i.e., proceeding in the direction of Jerusalem and the Beis HaMikdash.[19] This reflects progress "from strength to strength,"[20] advancing to higher levels of holiness.

Afterwards, however, the Torah reading relates:[21] "There was a famine in the land, and Avram descended to Egypt," recounting that Avraham had to leave Eretz Yisrael and descend to Egypt. How is it possible that this descent would be in harmony (- and indeed, be alluded to -) by the name Lech Lecha - which indicates a continuous advance to higher levels?

III

There is a further point: Not only was Avraham's journey to Egypt a descent, as the Torah states: "And Avram descended," (i.e., a spiritual, [as well as a physical] descent), but the cause which motivated his descent - the famine - brought about an even greater concealment [of G-dliness].

For when Avraham left his birthplace, G-d promised him:[22] "I will make you a great nation. I will bless you and expand your renown." And yet, when he came "to the land which I will show you,"[23] a famine set in, and Avraham was forced to leave the land.

It is true that this was a test,[24] and through overcoming this challenge (as the Midrash relates:[25] "He did not become upset or protest"), he was able to reach a higher level.[26] Nevertheless, the intent of Avraham's journey was not merely to elevate his own self to a higher level. Instead, [his mission was outer-directed:] To cite an analogy employed by the Midrash:[27] There was a vial of perfume kept in a corner and its fragrance had not spread. By taking the vial and carrying it from place to place, its fragrance began to spread. So too, G-d told Avraham, "Journey from place to place, and your renown will increase within the world."

Thus the intent of Avraham's journey was that wherever he would journey, G-d's name would become known and sanctified. This is the true meaning [of G-d's promise that] Avraham's renown would increase.[28] For [Avraham's identity was subsumed to G-d to the extent that] his own renown was identified with G-d's renown.

From this can be understood that when Avraham arrived in Eretz Yisrael, and immediately thereafter a famine broke out, G-d's name was not sanctified. On the contrary, the gentile nations had the opportunity to complain that the famine came about because of the arrival of a Jew who served G-d. Thus this element of the narrative appears to run contrary to the entire intent of Lech Lecha.

IV

There is an additional factor. Avraham's descent into Egypt caused Sarah to be taken into Pharaoh's home. Although G-d protected [her] and nothing undesirable happened; (indeed, Pharaoh did not even touch her),[29] the very fact that Sarah was taken into Pharaoh's home reflects an awesome descent. (In particular, [this is true] for as is well known,[30] [taking Sarah] enabled Pharaoh to receive nurture from the realm of holiness.)

Moreover, we see that Avraham's very approach to Egypt brought about a descent within his own character, as reflected in [the fact that] at that time,[31] [he told Sarah],[32] "Now I know that you are an attractive woman."

The Baal Shem Tov explains[33] that statement as follows: Our Sages state:[34] "The Patriarchs are the Divine chariot," [i.e., just as a chariot has no will of its own and is no more than a vehicle to transport the person driving it, so, too, the Patriarchs had no thought of their personal identity; their intent was merely to publicize G-dliness throughout the world]. Since Avraham was "a chariot" for G-d, and "his thoughts were always attached to the [sublime] root of thought," it was not until [his descent to Egypt] that he realized that Sarah was an attractive woman. Certainly, he had seen her previously.[35] Nevertheless, since his thought was always focused "beyond the limits of physical sight," [her appearance did not make an impression upon him]. When, however, he approached Egypt, this made (albeit in a refined manner[36]) an impression upon him, and "he descended from his spiritual rung, [to the point where] thoughts [from the material frame of reference, stemming] from the destruction of the vessels"[37] came to him. And as a result, he first realized that Sarah was an attractive woman.

Thus explanation is certainly necessary. How can all the above matters that are included within this Torah reading be referred to with the name Lech Lecha which, as above, connotes an ascent from strength to strength?

V

To clarify the above, we have to explain the inner meaning of our Sages' statement: "The deeds of the Patriarchs are a sign for their descendants." The intent is not merely that the deeds of the Patriarchs serve as an indicator; that what happened to the Patriarchs will happen to their descendants. Instead, the intent is that the deeds of the Patriarchs are a precipitator,[38] setting in motion [the factors] that cause the same pattern to recur for posterity.[39]

In this vein, the Zohar[40] explains that Avraham's descent into Egypt led to the exile in Egypt, and the fact that "Avraham ascended from Egypt,"[41] brought about [the Jews'] ultimate exodus from that land. [The causality is of more than a general nature; the particulars also match.] Avraham left Egypt "heavily laden with herds, silver, and gold."[42] And as a result, it was promised that when the Jews would leave Egypt, they "would depart with great wealth."[43]

[Similarly,] the spiritual factor that led to the Exodus also had its roots in our ancestors' conduct. It is explained[44] that the Jews were redeemed from Egypt because the women guarded themselves from immorality. This merit stemmed from Sarah's conduct when, despite the fact that she was taken to Pharaoh's palace, she perverted immoral conduct. This granted her descendants the potential to protect themselves against lewdness. Although they lived in Egypt, a depraved land, the Egyptians were unable to exercise any control over the Jewish women, just as Pharaoh was not able to even touch Sarah.[45]

VI

On this basis, we can explain how the inner intent of Avraham's descent to Egypt is alluded to in Parshas Lech Lecha. For the ultimate purpose of Avraham's descent into Egypt was to ascend "heavily laden with herds, silver, and gold,"[46] just as the exile into Egypt was intended so that[47] "they would depart with great wealth," having elevated the sparks of holiness of that land. Thus the descent was the first phase of the ascent.

To site a parallel: The analysis of a subject in the Babylonian Talmud[48] begins with questions and dialectic inquiry which on the surface veil and conceal the Torah's insights[49] (in contrast to the Jerusalem Talmud which follows the pattern of direct light[50]). Nevertheless, the didactic process and the many questions raised enable us to penetrate to the depths of the halachah to a far greater extent than is possible through the study of the Jerusalem Talmud. For this reason, whenever there is a difference of opinion between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, the halachah follows the Babylonian Talmud.[51]

With regard to the veiling and concealment that exists within the Babylonian Talmud, it is obvious that the study of the questions is part of the clarification of Torah law that comes about as a result. Similarly, with regard to Avraham's descent into Egypt, since this descent was a necessary preparatory step to his ascent "heavily laden with herds...," it also must be seen as one of the phases of that ascent.

This concept also applies to our people's later descent into Egypt. Since the purpose and goal of the descent into Egypt is the ultimate ascent and exodus, the descent can be seen as a preparatory phase leading to that ascent.

Similar principles apply with regard to the present exile (for the Egyptian exile is the source for all the subsequent exiles[52]). The intent of this exile is [to elevate the Jews and the world to a higher level], as indicated by our Sages' statement:[53] "The Holy One, blessed be He, did not exile Israel among the nations except for the purpose of having converts gathered to them." ["Converts" here must be understood in an expanded sense, as referring to] the refinement of the sparks of holiness which exist within the exile. Through [this mission], the Jews are elevated to a spiritual level higher than that which existed at the time of the Beis HaMikdash, as indicated by the verse:[54] "The glory of this later house will surpass that of the first." Thus it is obvious that this descent is a part of the ascent which is drawing near.

VII

This [produces] a directive for us in our own Divine service. When a person considers the spiritual situation of the world at large, [he may be overwhelmed] by the day-to-day increase of spiritual darkness. As our Sages commented:[55] "The [negative elements][56] of each day are greater than those of the preceding day." This can lead to despair, causing a person to think: "How is it possible for me to muster the strength to endure the darkness and illuminate the world with the light of the Torah and its mitzvos?"

In reply, he should understand that all of the descents, veils and concealments are merely external factors. When looking at the inner dynamic, one appreciates that, on the contrary, the world does not control its own destiny. It is being directed by G-d, and we can be certain that G-d's intent is that everything that occurs in the world - even those elements which appear to be darkness and descent - is intended to lead to the world's refinement and elevation. Thus this descent is really merely a preparatory step for - and itself a part of - that ultimate ascent. And thus from day to day, the world is reaching a higher level and becoming more refined, until eventually, it will reach its consummate fulfillment, when it will be realized that it is G-d's dwelling.

VIII

There is, however, still a need for further clarification: It is true that "Man's footsteps are established by G-d,"[57] and that wherever a person goes - even though it appears that he is acting independently, because of his own desires - he is acting because of G-d's desires. (And indeed, [G-d's desire is the source] of his own desire. For these dimensions of man's power of will are sensitive to G-d's will.[58])

This applies with regard to the ordinary, mundane aspects of a person's conduct. The observance of the Torah and its mitzvos, by contrast, has been given over to a man's free choice. He can do whatever he wants.[59] He can even perform a sin which is the opposite of G-d's will.

[These concepts also relate to our Torah reading. For] the Ramban[60] interprets Avraham's descent to Egypt as "a sin which he committed." How can we explain that such an act is, from an inner perspective, an ascent? [By definition, a transgression is the opposite of G-d's will.]

With regard to the exile of the Jewish people as a whole, an explanation can be offered: Although "because of our sins, we were exiled from our land,"[61] the exile itself was brought about by G-d. (It is merely that the reason G-d brought about the exile was our sins.) And since everything which stems from G-d is certainly intended to bring the world to its ultimate purpose, it can be explained that the exile [is not merely a punishment]. Instead, the exile is structured in such a manner that (not only will it remove the blemish and the descent caused by sin,[62] but) it will bring the Jews to a higher level than they experienced at the time of the Beis HaMikdash. Hence, [exile] itself is part of the process of ascent.

With regard to Avraham's descent into Egypt, however, the descent itself - at least according to the Ramban's interpretation - was against G-d's will. How then is it possible to consider it part of a process of ascent?

IX

On a previous occasion, it was explained at length that the "sins" which the Torah mentions with regard to righteous men and in particular with regard to the Patriarchs cannot be understood as sins in the ordinary conception of the term. For perfect tzaddikim do not have an evil inclination.[63] And with regard to the Patriarchs, since as above, they served as "a chariot" for G-d's will throughout their entire lifetime,[64] evil - the source of all sin - had no place entirely in their makeup.

Instead, for them, sin, can be understood in an extended context.[65] [When Bat Sheva asked King David to keep his pledge to grant the kingship to her son Shlomo, she told him that otherwise, "I and my son Shlomo will be lacking ."[66]] Similarly, with regard to the righteous, sin, refers to a lack, a deficiency in Divine light; less Divine light is drawn down. To cite a parallel: In the spiritual realms, there is a continuous downward progression of light. On every level, there is less light than on the level that is above it.[67] [Similarly, the Patriarch's "sins" involved reducing the quantity of Divine light; all their actions, however, remained] in the realm of holiness.

The above explanations do not represent a contradiction to the teaching [shared by the Maggid of Mezeritch][68] on the verse:[69] "And Avraham fell on his face and laughed and he said within his heart: 'Will [a man who is] 100 years old father a child? Will Sarah who is 90 years old give birth?" [The Maggid explained:]

The meaning of the verse does not depart from its literal interpretation.[70] If you will ask: How is it possible that Avraham could have doubts[71] with regard to G-d's promise? Know that this stems from the body.[72] For even a holy body is flesh.

[That teaching cannot be interpreted to mean that the Patriarchs were capable of committing sins in a simple sense.] For the teaching itself speaks about "a holy body." Hence, sin in a simple sense is not relevant, for in the realm of holiness, there is no conception of evil. Accordingly, the above teaching should be interpreted to mean that the Patriarchs performed these activities because of their bodies. And since their bodies were flesh, these actions were performed in a manner which (from a simple and superficial perspective) could be understood as a sin.[73]

X

On this basis, we can understand the reason why Avraham's descent to Egypt can be considered as part of his eventual ascent. For from an inner standpoint, Avraham acted according to G-d's will.

This explanation is, however, insufficient, for all the concepts related in the Torah are lessons for every Jew (even a person who has the potential to commit a sin in a literal sense). Accordingly, the fact that the Torah tells us about Avraham's descent to Egypt - which can be interpreted as a sin in a literal sense - in the Torah reading of Lech Lecha serves as a lesson for every Jew: When he commits a sin in a literal sense, the sin is against G-d's will. Nevertheless, he must realize that from an inner standpoint, (even at the time of the sin,) he is in the midst of a process of continuous ascent.

XI

To explain the above (at least in a concentrated manner): One of the fundamental principles of faith (even according to the legal tradition of Nigleh[74]) is that G-d is the only Master within the entire world. Aside from Him, no other entity has any dominion [or any independent authority]. For all the stars and the spheres[75] - and even the angels - are merely "an ax in the hand of the chopper,"[76] functioning only "according to the will and command of G-d."[77] Believing that there are certain entities that have the ability to function according to their independent will runs contrary to the faith in the oneness of G-d. (This applies even if one acknowledges that any activity performed by these entities is performed with power vested in them by G-d, but maintains that these entities have the choice whether to exercise this power or not.)[78]

This also applies with regard to every individual person. Everything that he does, even those matters which affect the Torah and its mitzvos (which with regard to them, he has been granted free choice) are dependent on G-d's providence[79] and His will.[80]

There is, however, a fundamental difference [between the Divine providence that governs material concerns and the Divine providence that governs our observance]. With regard to the Divine will that relates to the external dimensions of the world, since it is (the external [dimensions of His] will), it therefore[81] relates to the created beings in a [direct and] immediate manner which is felt within the created beings. As a consequence, it compels the created beings to carry out His will.[82]

G-d's desire that relates to the Torah and its mitzvos, by contrast, is (the inner [dimensions of His] will. Thus as a consequence,[83] it is) above the [framework of] creation.[84] Hence it is not felt within a human being, and does not compel [his conduct].[85] And so, every act of a person[86] that relates to the Torah and its mitzvos is performed through his free choice.[87]

XII

Based on the above, it is clear that even the descents that the world at large and every individual person experience and that come as a result of man's deeds performed according to his own free will, are still dependent on G-d's providence. Accordingly, [it is also evident] that they lead to a [positive] purpose. Hence even these descents can be seen as phases in [the accomplishment of] this purpose.

Unquestionably, the actual performance of a sin is against G-d's will.[88] Nevertheless, the descent - in the world and within the person - which comes as a consequence of the sin is not contrary to G-d's will.[89] And thus it is not a true descent, but rather a phase in the ascent which comes about through it.

XIII

[Based on the above, we can appreciate] the directive that results from the fact that Avraham's descent into Egypt is related in Parshas Lech Lecha: Regardless of the nature of the situation in which a Jew is found, even if he is in a very lowly and degrading situation, and even if he himself was the one who brought himself to this abject state through his choice of evil, [he should have a positive perspective].

[Certainly,] because "he caused himself a loss," "it is appropriate for him to cry and lament his sins and the evil which he brought upon his soul."[90] And yet, the person should not despair and think that all hope is lost for him. For since the situation to which he brought himself came about not only because of his own choice, but because of G-d's providence, it will ultimately lead him (- through teshuvah -) to an extremely elevated rung.[91] Through teshuvah, he will be able to elevate even the sparks of holiness that are found within his willful transgressions and transform them into merits.[92]

The sins themselves cannot be elevated; on the contrary, "their destruction[93] is their rectification."[94] With regard to the person's own situation, however, he must realize that through the sin, he has been granted the opportunity (in an inner manner which is not openly revealed) to achieve an ascent. For he has the potential [to do teshuvah] - and [since] he has been assured that "no one will ever remain estranged from Him,"[95] he will certainly make that potential actual. In doing so, he [will] elevate the sparks of holiness found within these purposeful sins, transforming them into merits which surpass the merits of the tzaddikim.

(Adapted from Sichos Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah, 5713, 5725, Chag HaShavuos 5721)

   

Notes:

1. (Back to text) Megillah 29b does mention the name of readings VeAtah Tetzaveh and Ki Sissa, and Megillah 31a mentions the reading VeZos HaBerachah. It can, however, be explained that what is being referred to are the first words of the reading, rather than the name of the reading per se.* We do find, however, that Rashi (Sotah 40b) interprets [the Talmud's words] "and reads Acharei Mos" in a manner that indicates that it is the name of the entire passage.**

   ---

   * A parallel to this can be seen in the works of the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Tefillah 13:1) who refers to the readings Eleh Toldos and VaYomer Adonai el Avram, although when he refers to the passages by name (in his Seder Tefillos), he calls them Toldos Noach and Lech Lecha.

   ** In contrast, the Mishnah (Megillah 30b) mentions Acharei Mos after speaking of "the passage concerning the festivals," indicating that it is not referring to the passage by name.

   This distinction allows us to understand why in the tractate Sotah, Rashi states "the intent is only the first passage," although he does not make such a statement in Megillah which is a prior tractate. We cannot say that in the tractate Megillah, he relies on the statements that he will make later in the tractate of Sotah (see Yad Malachi, Klallei Rashi, Klal 9 and the sources which he cites). [Rather the explanation is that in Megillah, it is unnecessary for Rashi to clarify this point, because the Talmud is referring only to the first words of the reading. In Sotah, by contrast, the Talmud is referring to the reading by name. Therefore Rashi must clarify that the intent is only the first passage and not the entire reading.]

2. (Back to text) Bava Basra 14b.

3. (Back to text) See the conclusion of the tractate of Keilim which mentions the tractate's name.

4. (Back to text) As mentioned in the texts of the later scholars in the order of the tractates.*

   Berachos (Bava Kamma 30a, see the Rashba's commentary), Peah (Bava Metzia 10a), Terumos (Pesachim 34a), Kilayim (Jerusalem Talmud, Kilayim 6:3), Eruvin (Eruvin 79a), Yoma (Yoma 14b), Rosh HaShanah (Taanis 2a), Chagigah (Zohar, Vol. III, p. 223b), Taanis (op. cit., p. 247b), Yevamos (op. cit., p. 276a), Kesubos (Sotah 2a), Nedarim (Ibid.), Nazir (Ibid.), Sotah (Ibid.), Bava Kamma (Bava Kamma 102a, Zohar, Vol. III, p. 198a), Bava Metzia (Ibid.), Bava Basra (Ibid., as "the third Bava), Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 41b), Makkos (Sh'vuos 2b), Sh'vuos (Ibid.), Ediyos (Berachos 27a, as Bechirasa {note Rashi's commentary}), Avodah Zarah (Avodah Zarah 14b), Avos (Bava Kamma 30a, see the commentaries of Rabbeinu Chananel and the Rashba), Semachos, one of the smaller tractates (Kesubos 28a, as Evel Rabasi), Kallah, one of the smaller tractates (Shabbos 114a), Zevachim (Bava Metzia 109b as Shechitas Kodshim {See Rashi's commentary}), Menachos (Menachos 7a), Bechoros (Beitzah 28a), Tamid (Yoma 14b), Middos (Ibid. 16a), Negayim (Chagigah 14a, see also Ibid. 11a; one might, however, say that reference is to the subject and not to the name of the tractate), Ohelos (Eruvin 79a), Nidah (Jerusalem Talmud, Berachos 2:6, Zohar, Vol. III, p. 276a), Machshirin (Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbos 7:2), Tvul Yom (Jerusalem Talmud, Berachos 3:4), Uktzin (Berachos 20a).

   ---

   * [Although there are more references,] we have cited only one reference for the name of each tractate of the Talmud]

5. (Back to text) And from these we can draw conclusions with regard to the names of the other tractates of the Talmud. See the Rambam's Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah.

6. (Back to text) Many of the names of the Torah readings are mentioned in R. Saadia Gaon's Siddur in the section concerning the reading of the Torah. ([Some of the names used by R. Saadia Gaon differ from those used today,] e.g., he calls Parshas Tazria, Isha, and Parshas Metzora, Zos Tihiyeh.* The names of all the Torah readings are mentioned in the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, [the conclusion of Sefer Ahavah], Seder Tefillos.

   ---

   * Based on the above, questions may be asked of those who follow the custom of referring [to Parshas Metzora] with the name Taharah [in keeping with the practice of] choosing complimentary wording. For it would be more proper of them to use the name Zos Tihiyeh which is mentioned by R. Saadia Gaon and the Rambam (loc. cit.). (See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VII, p. 104, note 40, [where this question is discussed].)

7. (Back to text) See Rashi's commentary to the Torah which mentions several of the names of the Torah readings (Bereishis 47:2, Shmos 19:11, 25:7, et al).

8. (Back to text) Bava Basra 167b; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 49:3; Rama, Even HaEzer 120:3.

9. (Back to text) [Although] there are differences of opinion [with regard to] the names [of certain Torah readings, this does not present a problem]. For even with regard to actual halachic practice, there are often differences of opinion [among the Sages], and "These and these are the words of the living G-d" (Eruvin 13b).

10. (Back to text) Moreover, this is not [entirely] true. For the names of the Torah readings of Noach and Toldos (according to our present custom, in contrast to the names used by the Rambam in Seder Tefillos) [which do not mention the first word of the reading]. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VII, p. 25, note 40, [where this subject is discussed].

11. (Back to text) See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Taanios 1:3. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IX, p. 181, and the sources mentioned there. See also sec. VIII of this sichah.

12. (Back to text) It can be explained that the name of the Torah reading is taken from its first words, because the beginning [of the reading], its "head," contains within it the entire reading, [as the head contains the life-force for all the limbs of the body].

13. (Back to text) [Rashi in his commentary on the verse explains that "for yourself" means for your own benefit, that the journey will bring Avraham advantages that he could not have accrued otherwise.]

14. (Back to text) The conclusion of tractate Kiddushin.

15. (Back to text) For the name of the Torah reading is [not merely Lech, but] Lech Lecha.

16. (Back to text) See the commentary of R. Moshe Alshich to the Torah, which is cited and explained in the maamar entitled Lech Lecha, 5702 and 5705, et al.

17. (Back to text) Bereishis 12:1.

18. (Back to text) Ibid.:9

19. (Back to text) Bereishis Rabbah, the conclusion of sec. 39, Rashi's commentary to the verse.

20. (Back to text) Cf. Tehillim 84:8.

21. (Back to text) Bereishis 12:10.

22. (Back to text) Bereishis 12:2.

23. (Back to text) Ibid.:1.

24. (Back to text) Bereishis Rabbah 40:2; Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 26; Avos DeRebbe Nossan 32:2; Rashi's commentary to this verse; the commentary of Rashi and Rambam to Avos 5:3.

25. (Back to text) Bereishis Rabbah, loc. cit.

26. (Back to text) See Bereishis Rabbah 55:1; Ramban, commentary to Bereishis 22:1; Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 19b ff.; Derech Mitzvosecha 185b ff.; et al.

27. (Back to text) Bereishis Rabbah 39:2.

28. (Back to text) Otherwise, according to the simple meaning of the verse, the rationale for G-d's promise "I will... expand your renown" is difficult to understand. Avraham [had no self-consciousness whatsoever]; he represented the ultimate of bittul, as reflected by the verse (Bereishis 18:27): "I am but dust and ashes." Thus the question is raised (Alshich; the maamar entitled Lech Lecha, 5667): "How is it possible that Avraham would desire greatness and prominence?" In resolution, the maamar explains that the expanded renown which G-d promised Avraham was the ability to "draw down the level of His essential name." Note the explanation in that source.

29. (Back to text) Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha, sec. 8.

30. (Back to text) See Or HaTorah, Lech Lecha.

31. (Back to text) In contrast, before that time [he did not appreciate her beauty] (Bava Basra 16a; Midrash Tanchuma, loc. cit.; Zohar, Vol. I, p. 81b; the first (and fundamental) interpretation given in Rashi's commentary to the verse). From this, it is obvious that this degree of modesty was a manifestation of the physical qualities of Avraham and Sarah.*

    (See note 70 which explains that according to the simple interpretation {which is the intent of Rashi's commentary**}, the "deeds of the Patriarchs" are manifestations of their physical qualities.)

    ---

    * See Rashi's commentary which speaks of "the modesty which they both possessed." Similarly, the Zohar, loc. cit., speaks of "the great modesty shared between them." It is possible that for this reason, Rashi mentions that this interpretation is based on "Midrash Aggadah," (instead of saying "Our Sages commented" or the like), because from the Gemara itself, it would appear that the modesty was Avraham's [virtue] alone.

    ** Although Rashi states that this interpretation is based on "Midrash Aggadah," everything contained in Rashi's commentary to the Torah is related to the simple meaning of the text. (See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 1, note 2.)

32. (Back to text) Bereishis 12:11.

33. (Back to text) As quoted in the Maor Einayim, the conclusion of Parshas Shmos, entry Vizehu Rabbos Machshavos.

34. (Back to text) Bereishis Rabbah 47:6, 82:6. [See the explanation of this statement in Tanya, ch. 34.]

35. (Back to text) For "It is forbidden for a man to consecrate a woman until he sees her" (Kiddushin 41a). This resolves the question raised by the Maharsha in his Chidushei Aggados to Bava Basra, loc. cit.

36. (Back to text) See sec. VI, note 45.

37. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: Reference is being made to the destruction of the vessels of the spiritual realm of Tohu whose descent established the mindset of spiritual challenge that prevails within our material world.]

38. (Back to text) We find an even more encompassing explanation given with regard to the signs that determine whether an animal is kosher or not - that they bring about, not only inform us of, the animal's status. See the Tzofnas Pane'ach to the Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Maachalos Assuros 1:1. [See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. I, p. 222, where this concept is explained.]

39. (Back to text) This is also reflected in the example of the prophets cited by the Ramban in his commentary to Bereishis 12:6. See also the conclusion of sec. 40 in Bereishis Rabbah which quotes G-d as telling Avraham: "Go out and triumph on the way before your descendants." See also the explanation given in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 80, with regard to the mitzvos performed by the Patriarchs.

40. (Back to text) Vol. I, p. 81b.

41. (Back to text) Bereishis 13:1.

42. (Back to text) Ibid.:2.

43. (Back to text) Ibid. 15:14.

44. (Back to text) See Shir HaShirim Rabbah 4:12.

45. (Back to text) See Or HaTorah, Lech Lecha and see Tzror HaMor, commenting on Bereishis 12:10.

46. (Back to text) Similar concepts can be explained with regard to "the Egyptian-like thoughts that came to [Avraham]." They were intended "so that he could elevate them to their source... and not to disturb him.... This was considered as a greater dimension of slavery for him" (Maor Einayim, loc. cit.).

    Nevertheless, on a revealed level, this was a descent from [Avraham's] level. Thus [by acknowledging Sarah's beauty], he was saying [as it were]: "Now I know that I have fallen from my level." It was only through the spiritual service implied by "Please say that you are my sister" that "the[se] thoughts... came to him... to elevate them to their source."

47. (Back to text) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. III, p. 828ff. See also the passage from Maor Einayim cited previously.

48. (Back to text) {[There is an intrinsic connection between these concepts and the content of this sichah,] because the approach of the Babylonian Talmud} came about as a result of exile. And as explained previously, the reasons and the source for all the exiles is the Egyptian exile (see the sources referred to in note 52). That exile in turn came as a result of Avraham's descent to Egypt as explained in sec. V.

49. (Back to text) For, as stated in the Zohar, Vol. III, Raya Mehemna, Parshas Nasso, p. 124b, and explained in Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 26, "A question stems from the side of evil."

50. (Back to text) Shaarei Orah, the maamar entitled B'Chof Hei B'Kislev, ch. 54ff. Sefer HaMaamarim 5708, p. 121. [I.e., the Jerusalem Talmud does not raise questions and contradictions, but instead, explains the laws and concepts in a straightforward manner.]

51. (Back to text) See Yad Malachi, the beginning of sec. II.

52. (Back to text) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IX, p.178, note 28.

53. (Back to text) Pesachim 87b; Torah Or, p. 6a; Or HaTorah, Lech Lecha, p. 86a.

54. (Back to text) Chaggai 2:19. See Zohar, Vol. I, p. 28a, and other sources which explain that the verse refers to the Third Beis HaMikdash which will be built by the Holy One, blessed be He.

    Needless to say, this does not represent a contradiction to our Sages' interpretation (Bava Basra 3a) that the verse refers to the Second Beis HaMikdash. Note Zohar, Vol. III, 103a; Rashba, Vol. IV, Responsum 187, et al. (See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IX, pp. 28-29, note 29.)

55. (Back to text) Sotah 49a.

56. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: The actual Hebrew word used is kilkalaso, meaning "curse." In the original text, to refrain from using an unfavorable term, the Rebbe did not include it.]

57. (Back to text) Tehillim 37:23; see the statement of the Baal Shem Tov quoted in the Mafteichos ViHaaros to Likkutei Torah, p. 18d, HaYom Yom, p. 69.

58. (Back to text) See the maamar entitled VaYachalom, 5708, sec. 10.

59. (Back to text) See the Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuvah, ch. 5.

60. (Back to text) In his commentary to Bereishis 12:10. See also the Zohar on this Torah reading (p. 81b) which states that Avraham went to Egypt "without permission." (Note, however, Rashi's commentary to the above verse which states that it was "the Holy One, blessed be He... who induced him to leave [the land].")

61. (Back to text) Mussaf liturgy for festivals, Siddur Tehillat HaShem, p. 258.

62. (Back to text) This is the purpose of all punishment [and retribution], to wash away the sin (hagahah, Tanya, ch. 24).

63. (Back to text) Tanya, chs. 1 and 10. This is particularly true with regard to Avraham our Patriarch, of whom it is said: "He transformed his yetzer hora into goodness," which is a higher level than "My heart is a void within me" (Tehillim 109:22) which the Tanya uses [to describe the level of a complete tzaddik]. (See the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachos 9:5.)

64. (Back to text) Tanya, ch. 23 (p. 28b).

65. (Back to text) Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 82a; the maamar entitled Al Kein Yomru HaMoshlim, 5691, et al.

66. (Back to text) I Melachim 1:21.

67. (Back to text) A similar [pattern] can be seen with regard to all the tzimtzumim and descents of Divine light in the spiritual realms including the initial tzimtzum. All of these are intended for the sake of revelation. Similarly, the "sins" of the Patriarchs [were intended to bring about an increase in holiness], as reflected in the statements of the Maor Einayim cited in note 45.

    Nevertheless, as stated in the conclusion of this section, on an external level, this appears as a sin. This can be understood in terms of the explanation given in the maamar entitled Al Kein Yomru HaMoshlim cited above, that the lack of Divine light caused by the first tzimtzum makes it possible for actual sins to be committed.

68. (Back to text) Kovetz Michtavim LiTehillim, p. 197. [This source relates that the Maggid told the Alter Rebbe that in Gan Eden, he heard the following teaching being taught to schoolchildren by Moshe Rabbeinu.]

69. (Back to text) Bereishis 17:17.

70. (Back to text) Shabbos 63a.

71. (Back to text) Rashi, in his commentary to the verse, explains that Avraham believed G-d's promise (only Sarah did not). Nevertheless, [this should not be understood to mean that the Maggid's explanation departs from the simple interpretation of the verse]. (Indeed, the Maggid states that his explanation was given to schoolchildren.) For there are many different interpretations even within the context of the simple meaning of the Torah. ([In this context,] see the statements of Rashi quoted by the Rashbam in the beginning of his commentary to Parshas Vayeishev.)

72. (Back to text) See Sichos Parshas Lech Lecha, 5725 (Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 298ff.), which clarifies that the explanations of [the statement] "the deeds of the Patriarchs" that follow the Peshat reflect the manner in which those deeds affect the body, and the explanations which follow the approach of Derush relate to the soul. (See Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 23 {p. 137a} which identifies the Aggadah, [the aspect of the Torah which follows the approach of Derush,] with P'nimiyus HaTorah. P'nimiyus HaTorah itself is described as "the soul of the Torah.")

73. (Back to text) [The concepts explained above can be understood in terms of] the well-known concept that G-d's name Elokim {the source for the keilim which parallel the human body (Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 6, p. 81a)}, though itself one of His holy names, allows for the possibility of nurture to the external forces [i.e., the forces of evil]. {This parallels the explanation given with regard to the first tzimtzum ([which is also referred to as] the source for the keilim) in note 65.}

    Similar concepts apply with regard to the revealed Torah, [the body of Torah law]. (See the previous note [which equates P'nimiyus HaTorah with the soul of the Torah. Thus the revealed Torah parallels "the body."]) Although the revealed Torah is "G-d's wisdom, without any compound of evil, Heaven forbid" (Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 26, p. 143b), it allows the possibility of nurture [for the forces of evil] (see Kuntres Etz HaChayim, ch. 12ff.). To cite a parallel: Noticing the use of the plural in the verse (Bereishis 1:26): "Let us make man," our Sages comment (Bereishis Rabbah 8:8): "Let one who desires to err, err." (Note Rashi's commentary to that verse.)

74. (Back to text) See Mitzvas Achdus HaShem in Derech Mitzvosecho (p. 60b). The explanations to follow in the text above reflects "the explanation according to Nigleh" given there.

75. (Back to text) [Powers to which astrologers would attribute control over fate.]

76. (Back to text) Cf. Yeshayahu 10:15.

77. (Back to text) This is the wording used by the Tzemach Tzedek in the above source. (See also p. 6a ff.) See also the fifth of the Rambam's "Thirteen Principles of Faith" (in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1) which states that neither the constellations or any other heavenly [or earthly] body has free choice.

78. (Back to text) See the sources cited previously.

79. (Back to text) Were this not to be so, there would be no resolution to the question raised by the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuvah 5:4): "How is it possible for man to do whatever he desires and be granted the potential to control his deeds? Is it possible [for man] to do anything in this world without the will of his Creator?"

    The Rambam offers the following resolution: "Just as the Creator desired that fire and wind ascend upward... and desired that the other creations follow the nature with which they were endowed, so, too, He desired that man be given license, and for all of his deeds to be under his control.

    This resolution, however, appears insufficient, [because the concept that man can have utter free will - even if granted to him by G-d - appears to be a denial of G-d's absolute sovereignty.] For the idolaters who worship the stars because they believe that they have free choice and do not consider them as "an ax in the hand of the chopper" (Derech Mitzvosecha, p. 6a), still do not think that their free choice is their independent franchise. Instead, they believe that it is G-d who desired that they have free choice. (See the Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 1:1 who writes: "They believe that this emptiness is His will.") Nevertheless, since the idolaters maintain (according to their [mistaken] conception) that the stars have the authority to do as they desire, this is (not merely an error and foolishness, but also) a denial of His oneness.

    [Thus although the resolution mentioned by the Rambam cited above is based on the fact that man's free choice was granted to him by G-d, this also applies, according to the idolaters' mistaken conception, to the free choice of the stars. Hence, according to the Rambam, the question can be raised:] What is the difference between the free will of man and the [supposed] free will of the stars?

    Therefore it is apparent that we must rely on the explanation to follow in the text above. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. III, Parshas Shemini, note 19.

80. (Back to text) This is the wording used by the Previous Rebbe in the maamar entitled VaYachalom, 5708, sec. 9. The continuation of the text [in that maamar]: "This is the concept of choice with regard to the Torah and its mitzvos," indicates that [such observance] is also "dependent on [His] providence."

81. (Back to text) See the maamar entitled ViHu KiChasan, 5657, sec. V, and the maamar entitled ViEleh Toldos, 5666.

82. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: The intent appears to be that our world comes into being because G-d desired "a dwelling in the lower worlds," i.e., His will is that the Jews observe the Torah within this material frame of reference. That material framework is thus not desired in its own right; it is needed merely as the setting for the Jews' observance. Accordingly, it is structured according to the dictates of G-d's wisdom, and once it is structured, it is defined. A set pattern is brought into existence that determines the functioning of every being - and every future event - that exists within that framework. Moreover, this "natural order" even restricts G-d Himself as it were. For although He can disrupt the natural order and bring about change within it, this is not His will. For as stated above, His desire is for a dwelling within the lower worlds, that He be recognized within the natural order. Hence, He desires to maintain that natural order without change.]

83. (Back to text) In addition, the external dimension of G-d's will is itself "forced upon Him," (as it were, because of [His desire for] the Torah and its mitzvos; [i.e., since G-d desires that the Jews observe the Torah and its mitzvos, He is, as it were, compelled to create a framework, the creation at large, where the Torah and its mitzvos will be observed]. See the maamarim cited in note 79.) Because this desire [compels G-d as it were], it also compels the created beings.

    [G-d's] desire for the Torah and its mitzvos, in contrast, is not defined or forced upon Him. On the contrary, [as the Midrash] (Bereishis Rabbah 44:1) states: "What difference does it make [for the Holy One, blessed be He, if one slaughters from the neck or from the back]? and (ibid.: 2:5) quotes G-d as saying: "I don't know which I desire, the deeds of [the righteous] or the deeds of [the wicked]." [His desire for the deeds of the righteous is thus only a function of His choice.] Since His desire [for the Torah and its mitzvos] is not forced, as it were, it does not compel a person's choice. See also note 86.

84. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: The intent appears to be that G-d's will is undefined and unlimited as He Himself is. Therefore just as within His essence there is the possibility for opposites to exist, opposites - i.e., His desire for the Torah and its mitzvos and His willingness to consent to their violation so that a Jew can experience teshuvah - also exist within His will.]

85. (Back to text) See ch. 9 of the maamar entitled VaYachalom which states that the person: "thinks he is acting as a result of his independent will." It is, nevertheless, clearly understood that [man's] free choice in [observing] the Torah and its mitzvos {which is "a fundamental principle of great importance, a pillar of the Torah and its commandment[s]" (Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 5:3)} is genuine; (it is not that man merely thinks that he is choosing his future). Hence, we are forced to say that the meaning of the passage from the maamar entitled VaYachalom is as explained in the text above. This concept is explicitly stated in the sources mentioned in note 87.

86. (Back to text) Note the expression used by the Rambam (loc. cit.:1): "This is implied by the Torah's statement (Bereishis 3:22): 'Thus man has become like one of Us...,'" i.e., that he has free choice. See also Likkutei Torah, Vayikra 38b.

87. (Back to text) See a similar explanation which is given in the Biurei Zohar of the Tzemach Tzedek, Vol. I, pp. 265-266, and in the maamar entitled Vehayah Ki Savo, 5672.

88. (Back to text) Although [committing a sin is against G-d's will, the fact that man can do so] does not minimize G-d's authority or His unity, because [of the uniqueness of G-d's] desire for the Torah and its mitzvos. Since this desire is not defined or forced upon Him, Heaven forbid, (as stated in note 83), the sin is of no consequence, nor does it generate concealment for Him (as explained in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VII, p. 23).

    [I.e., were G-d's desire for the Torah and its mitzvos to be a straightforward cut and dry matter, the fact that a person committed a sin would represent not only a difficulty with regard to that person's relationship with G-d, but a challenge to His sovereignty. For sin is a defiance of His will. And it would represent a contradiction to His absolute unity, for the act of sin could not be at one with Him. Explaining that His desire for the Torah and its mitzvos is undefined - He "does not know which [He] desires" - clarifies why a transgression of the Torah and its mitzvos does not dispute His authority or His oneness. For even if a person commits a sin, he has not violated G-d's will as it exists in an ultimate sense.]

    Although from the standpoint of G-d's choice, He does not desire the deeds of the wicked [and therefore at this level, the questions sin raises with regard to His sovereignty and His oneness would appear legitimate, this also does not represent a theoretical problem]. For His choice stems from His essence which exists in a manner beyond the framework of existence as we know it. [That level] is utterly undefined; no description - either positive or negative - is appropriate for it. Therefore the fact that one acts contrary to this level of G-d's will does not represent a change [in His will, and His will can also include an act that appears, at the outset, to run contrary to His desire]. See also note 93.

89. (Back to text) [To cite a parallel, Tanya,] Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 25 (p. 138b), [explains that] although a person who injures a colleague is given free choice [and is not obligated to harm his fellow man], it was already decreed from Above that the injured party would suffer this harm.

90. (Back to text) Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuvah 5:2.

91. (Back to text) [The uniqueness of the spiritual level attained through teshuvah] can be explained in two ways:

    1. Through teshuvah, the person can elevate even the sparks of G-dliness within the sins which he purposefully committed, as explained in the text above;

    2. He destroys the sinful acts through his regret and bitterness over them.

    The second quality (destroying the act of sin) reaches a higher level than the refinement of the sparks of G-dliness. [For to free oneself from the framework of evil and destroy its hold, one must tap the essence of the soul, a spiritual level above any of the sparks of G-dliness that may be elevated. (See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, p. 22ff. [translated in this series].)]

    (This concept can be appreciated from the explanation in Toras Chayim, Shmos, pp. 332b, 337a. This is also reflected by the fact that Pirkei Avos 5:1 and Tanya, ch. 22 (p. 27b) mention "to punish the wicked," before "to grant a generous reward to the righteous who subjugate the sitra achra." (See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 249, note 59.)

92. (Back to text) See Yoma 86b.

93. (Back to text) [The sins themselves must be rejected entirely; there is no way that they themselves - in contrast to the G-dly spark they contain - can be elevated.] Although there is nothing apart from G-d, as it is written (Devarim 4:35): "There is nothing else aside from Him," nevertheless, we cannot say (that kelipah and more particularly,) sins will be able to be elevated and made vessels for G-dliness, for they are the opposite of His will. With regard to them, the concept that "There is nothing else aside from Him," is revealed by the fact that they are of no consequence and need not be reckoned with (as stated in note 88). Therefore "their destruction is their rectification."

    {I.e., in contrast to entities within the realm of holiness, which [reveal G-dliness in a positive manner,] by being united with Him, [entities within the realm of kelipah and sins can] never become mediums [for the revelation of G-dliness]. [They reveal G-d's power by being nullified and showing that their existence - i.e., an existence apart from G-d - is of no genuine importance.]}

    {G-d's lack of desire for "the deeds of the wicked" is reflected in the fact that "the deeds of the wicked" exist, and yet are nullified. See Toras Chayim, Shmos, p. 331b which explains that the forces that oppose holiness are brought into being "to [bring into expression] His attribute of victory." See also the explanation of the phrase "to punish the wicked" in Tanya, ch. 22 (p. 27b). See also note 89 above.}

94. (Back to text) Cf. Keilim 2:1. See the maamar entitled Noach, 5670. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VII, pp. 22-23, notes 20 and 28.

95. (Back to text) See II Shmuel 14:14. [The interpretation of this phrase in the above context has its source in] the Alter Rebbe's ruling, Hilchos Talmud Torah 4:3, and Tanya, ch. 39, which states: "He will certainly turn in teshuvah, for 'no one will ever remain estranged from Him.'"

    (The Rambam in Hilchos Teshuvah 7:5 uses a different [prooftext for a similar concept, because the Rambam] is speaking about the Jewish people as a whole, [while the Alter Rebbe is concerned with each individual Jew].)