Lech Lecha: Avraham’s Achievement

Bereishis 6:9.

In his commentary to the above-cited verse.

Bereishis Rabbah 32:6.

Avodah Zarah 9a.

Shmos Rabbah 12:3; Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Vaeira, section 15.

Zohar, Vol. I, p. 106a.

Sefer HaSichos 5702 [1941-1942],p. 30; quoted in brief in Hayom Yom, entry 3 Marcheshvan.

Avodah Zarah 9a.

See the maamar entitled VeHavayah Beirach, sec. 2, the paragraph beginning with the words, “In Likkutei Torah of the Arizal,” in Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 1, p. 126a ff.

See the in-depth explanation of this concept in Sefer HaArachim–Chabad, erech Avraham avinu, sec. 4, and the sources mentioned there.

Shmos Rabbah 12:3; Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Vaeira, section 15.

Shabbos 88a. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 2, p. 302, et al.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 15, p. 51ff.

For the Flood came to cleanse the world of its spiritual impurity (Torah Or, p. 8d). See also the sources cited in footnote 32.

See the explanation of similar concepts in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 2, loc. cit., with regard to the sequence of the months Nissan, Iyar, and Sivan, the first, second, and third months, and Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 9, p. 27, with regard to the sequence of the three Batei HaMikdash.

To explain the three phases in the sequence:

a) In the first phase, the emphasis is on revelation from Above. The status of the world in which that revelation takes place is not significant.

b) The second phase highlights the refinement of the lower realm. G‑d relates to the lower realm, not as He is for Himself, in His infinity, but as warranted by the conduct of the people in that realm.

c) In the third phase, G‑d reveals His inifinity, but enables it to be internalized within man as he exists within this lowly realm. Later, in the sichah, the Rebbe explains how such a fusion is possible.

Bereishis 6:9. The word toldos can mean either “offspring” or “chronicles.” We have used the former translation because that is how Rashi understands its meaning. Therefore, he felt it necessary to explain that “the offspring of the righteous are their good deeds….”

Rashi’s commentary to the beginning of Parshas Noach, taken from Bereishis Rabbah and Midrash Tanchuma, op. cit. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 36, footnote 2.

The concept stated in the main text also relates to the first interpretation that Rashi mentions (based on Aggadas Bereishis, ch, 4; Midrash Tanchuma, Buber edition, Parshas Noach, sec. 9), “Since the Torah mentioned Noach, it related his praise,” for this also relates to Noach’s Divine service. See Likkutei Sichos, loc. cit., pp. 45–46, and note 58 there.

Bereishis 5:28ff., 6:8.

Similarly, according to the straightforward understanding of the Scriptural narrative, the account of the events of Noach’s life as an independent chronicle begins in Parshas Noach. In contrast, his birth and his having found favor in G‑d’s eyes are particulars in the account of “the chronicles of Adam” (Bereishis 5:1; see Rashi’s commentary). See the elaborate explanation in Likkutei Sichos, loc. cit., p. 40.

Similar concepts apply with regard to the account of Avraham’s birth at the conclusion of Parshas Noach. It represents the conclusion of “the chronicles of Shem” (Bereishis 11:10).

See the explanation of all the above in Likkutei Sichos, loc. cit., pp. 45–46, and the footnotes there.

Torah Or, p. 11c.; Toras Chayim, Bereishis, p. 83d ff.; Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 6, p. 1075b ff.

See also Likkutei Torah leGimmel Parshiyos, p. 77a–b. Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 4, pp. 684b, 687b, which explains that G‑d’s command to Avraham “Go out,” which mandated that he descend and be drawn down to a lower spiritual plane, is comparable to the nullification of the decree separating the higher realms from the lower realms that was brought about by the Giving of the Torah. Consult those sources.

True, “the two millennia of Torah” began when Avraham was 52 years old, when he was living in Charan (Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.). Nevertheless, his preparations for the Giving of the Torah began only after his having received the command, “Go out.” For this reason, the reference to “the souls that he acquired in Charan” (Bereishis 12:5), which the Targum renders “the souls that he brought under the dominion of the Torah” – which constituted the beginning of “the two millennia of Torah” (Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.; Rashi, loc. cit.) – is found in Parshas Lech Lecha,even though chronologically it preceded that command. See the following footnote.

See the sources mentioned in the preceding footnote. On this basis, it is possible to understand Tosafos’ question (Avodah Zarah, loc. cit., s.v. ugemirei) regarding the juxtaposition of the statement of our Sages that “the two millennia of Torah” began when Avraham was 52, when his service with “the souls that he acquired in Charan” began, with the chronology of the Scriptural narrative in Parshas Lech Lecha, where it is written (Bereishis 12:4), “Avram was 75 years old when he left Charan” – and only afterwards does it mention “the souls that he acquired in Charan.”

It would seem that the resolution to Tosafos’ question is self-evident, as Maharsha states: “Although Avraham was 75 when G‑d commanded him ‘Go out,’ he took with him ‘the souls’ whom he taught in Charan from the time that he was 52.”

The basis of Tosafos’ question is: Since the preparations for the Giving of the Torah began only when Avraham left Charan to journey to Eretz Yisrael, it is logical to assume that the two millennia of Torah began only then. Therefore, Tosafos explains that Avraham left Charan for Eretz Yisrael twice, the first time when he was 52.* He then returned to Charan and left again for Eretz Yisrael when he was 75.

His first departure was already related to “the two millennia of Torah,” although his preparations for the Giving of the Torah began only when he left Charan the second time, when he was 75. See the sources cited in the previous footnote. See also Torah Or, p. 11d.

According to the explanation in Seder HaDoros (2023; consult that source), G‑d’s command to Avraham, “Go out,” was issued the first time he left Charan.** Thus, the command “Go out” – which as explained in the previous footnote is comparable to the nullification of the decree separating the higher realms from the lower realms that took place at the Giving of Torah – was given at the very beginning of “the two millennia of Torah.”

* Even though Avraham’s work in teaching “the souls… in Charan” was carried out prior to his having left Charan, it is possible to explain that according to Tosafos, the intent of our Sages’ words that “the two millennia of Torah” began from Avraham’s work in teaching “the souls… in Charan” when he was 52, was not that he was 52 when he began teaching them. Instead, that was the time when he “departed Charan to go to the land of Canaan.” The “two millennia of Torah” began when Avraham took “the souls” that he had taught to Eretz Yisrael.

** The chronology in Seder HaDoros differs slightly from that of Tosafos. Seder HaDoros maintains that Avraham was commanded, “Go out,” and departed from Charan when he was 55. Juxtaposing the logic of Seder HaDoros with Tosafos’ chronology, it is reasonable to assume that according to Tosafos, G‑d’s command “Go out” was issued when he left for Eretz Yisrael the first time, i.e., when he was 52.

See footnote 75 below.

Bereishis Rabbah 39:6 (see the commentaries on this Midrash). The gloss Etz Yosef to this Midrash associates Avraham’s words Challilah lecha (“It is unbecoming to you”) in his plea on behalf of the inhabitants of Sodom with G‑d’s command Lech lecha. See also Bereishis Rabbah 49:9, Vayikra Rabbah 10:1.

Zohar, Vol. I, pp. 67b, 106a; theomitted sections, p. 244b; Vol. III, p. 15a.

See Bereishis 18:23ff.

Zohar, Vol. I, p. 106a.

Shmos 32:32.

See the section entitled “Counting to Three.”

This parallels the difference between Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanus, who is described (Avos 2:9) as “a cemented cistern that does not lose a drop” and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach, who is described (ibid.) as “an ever-flowing stream.” See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 10, p. 82, which explains this mishnah in the context of the analogy given here in the main text.

Cf. Avos 5:2.

Rashi, Bereishis 5:24. See Bereishis Rabbah 25:1.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 10, p. 190.

Bereishis 6:9. “Even” was added to reflect Rashi’s explanation of the inference to be drawn from the phrase “in his generations,” based on Sanhedrin 108a.

Sanhedrin, loc. cit. ff.

Bereishis 8:21–22.

Bereishis 9:12ff.

See Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 3, p. 648a ff., 652b; the maamar entitled Es Kashti, 5654, Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 15, p. 52. It is explained in those sources that prior to the Flood, the world was of a coarse, material nature and the water droplets that were suspended in the sky were not sufficiently refined to refract the sun’s light. Hence, through all those years there was never a rainbow. The Flood and Noach’s offerings brought about the refinement of the material world necessary to allow for the appearance of a rainbow.

Bereishis Rabbah 32:6, cited by Rashi, Bereishis 7:7.

See Derech Mitzvosecha, mitzvas haamanas Elokus, sec. 2, which explains that there exist dimensions of G‑dliness that relate to the limitations of our world that can be grasped through understanding, and yet-loftier dimensions of G‑dliness that transcend those limitations. Man relates to those loftier dimensions through faith.

See sec. 5 of the maamar entitled Atah…Asher Bacharta, 5700. See also the sources cited in the following footnote.

See Rambam’s description of Avraham’s recognition of the existence of G‑d in Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 1:3. See also the elaborate treatment of this subject in sec. 8 of the maamar entitled Ki Cheilek, 5694 (appearing in Sefer HaMaamarim 5711), and sec. 3 of the maamar entitled Lech Lecha, 5700, et al.

Sanhedrin 111a; Shmos Rabbah 6:4; Rashi, Shmos 6:1.

Nechemiah 9:8.

The virtue of the Divine service of a “simple servant” is described at length in the maamar entitled Mikneh Rav and in the maamarim that follow in the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah 5666. Avraham’s serving G‑d in this manner is described in sec. 3 of the maamar entitled Velo Neivosh, 5701. See also the end of sec. 4 of the maamar entitled Atah… Asher Bacharta, 5700.

See the beginning of sec. 9 of the maamar entitled Mi Hei’ir, 5703. See also sec. 9 of the maamar entitled Kol HaNeheneh, 5689 (published in Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim, Vol. 1).

Similar concepts apply with regard to the Divine service of the Patriarchs, beginning with Avraham. Their observance of the mitzvos only had an effect on the spiritual dimensions of the world (see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 3, p. 888, and the sources mentioned there). Even prior to the Patriarchs’ Divine service, those spiritual dimensions are not “lowly” in a complete sense.

The purpose of the Giving of the Torah was to elevate and refine every aspect of existence, even the most coarse.

Although as explained previously, Avraham had indeed begun the process of paving the way for the Giving of the Torah, his Divine service and that of his immediate descendants did not bridge the gap separating the lower realms from the upper realms. They merely initiated a process allowing for a connection to be established.

The Hebrew term gezeirah has two meanings: “decree,” which is how the above-cited Midrash employs the term, and “cut off,” which is the point that the main text is highlighting here. Prior to the Giving of the Torah, the lower realms were cut off from the upper realms.

See the interpretation of the verse (Iyov 22:28), “You will decide (vatigzor) and make a statement,” in Likkutei Amarim of the Maggid of Mezritch, sec. 361.

See the responsa of Rashba, Vol. 1, responsum 418; the Tzemach Tzedek’s Sefer HaChakirah, p. 68.

True, the revelation that took place at the time of the Giving of the Torah came about only because G‑dliness was drawn down from Above and “this lowly world remained in its natural state without having been refined” (the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 2, p. 931; see also Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 28b). Thus, the relationship between G‑dliness and the physical world is seemingly comparable only to the first method of influence employed by a teacher in imparting knowledge to a student. Nevertheless, at the time of the Giving of the Torah the potential was also granted for the Divine service that would follow the Giving of the Torah to have an effect on the physical world and transform it into a kli, a medium – not only for conveying the G‑dly light that is meted out in accordance with the limitations of the world but also – for conveying the infinite G‑dly light that has no limitations. Indeed, through this Divine service, the world will be a dwelling for G‑d’s Essence in the Ultimate Future.

Even in that future time, although the world will continue to remain in its physical state, it will nevertheless become a kli and dwelling for the Ein Sof, unlimited G‑dliness. Thus, the Torah’s effects surpass even those of the third method of influence employed by a teacher to a student, for via that method the abilities of the student are developed to the extent that they come to resemble those of the teacher. The student is thereby elevated above his previous state. However, at the Giving of the Torah the potential was granted for this lowly world, as it remains low,* to be fused with the higher, spiritual realms. Moreover, that fusion will also relate to their very being (that they will become a medium for G‑dliness and be identified with it).

* This can be understood from the fact that, in that future era, G‑d’s desire and intent for a dwelling in the lower realms will be consummated. True, Tanya (ch. 36)defines this world as “the lower realms” because of “the concealment of G‑d’s light” and in the Ultimate Future, that concealment will cease. Nevertheless, even in that future era, this world will still be considered “lowly” since the tzimtzum – which is the root and causeof the concealment prevailing in this world – will not be nullified. The reason that material existence will become a dwelling for G‑d is because the darkness of the tzimtzum itself will be transformed into light (the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 2, pp. 930, 932). Being that light and darkness are polar opposites, the transformation of darkness into light is therefore impossible according to the prevailing structures of light and darkness. It is made possible solely by virtue of the power of G‑d’s Essence, which is not bound by any structure (see the series of maamarim beginning Rosh HaShanah 5695 (published in Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim, Vol. 2, sec. 34). Hence, according to the prevailing structures of the world, this world will be continue to be “low” even in that future era. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 12, p. 75, footnote 30. Further analysis of all the above is still required.

See Toras Shalom, p. 128; the maamar entitled Basi LeGani, 5712, sec. 4.

The rationale is that when the higher realms and lower realms are not connected, even when a created being (who as part of the lower realm) dedicates himself to fulfilling G‑d’s desire for a dwelling in those realms, his dedication is is limited. He is committed only to the extent that G‑d’s intent affects him; he is not dedicated to the Divine intent itself.

Vayikra 19:17. Sefer HaMitzvos (positive commandment 205) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 239) include this as one of the 613 mitzvos of the Torah.

Zohar, Vol. I, p. 68a.

In that vein, the Zohar, loc. cit., states: “He rebuked them day after day. Even though they did not accept his words, he followed the course of conduct reflected in Yechezkel 3:19, et al., ‘And you saved your own soul.’ ”

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 15, p. 40ff., which elaborates on the explanation of the difference between the approaches of Noach, Avraham, and Moshe with regard to praying for transgressors.

Moreover, he showed no concern whatsoever for his own self-interest. As is well known, this constitutes the advantage of the self-sacrifice of Avraham over that of Rabbi Akiva (see Sefer HaMaamarim 5700, pp. 6, 15, Sefer HaMaamarim Kayitz 5700, p. 30).

Bereishis 21:33; Sotah 10a ff.; et al.

Chassidus (Likkutei Torah, Devarim, pp.42d, 43c; the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 1, sec. 133; et al.) highlights the implication of the wording that the Torah uses: Were the phrase to have read, E-l ha’olam, it would be translated as “L‑rd of the world,” implying that the world is a separate entity over which G‑d rules.E-l olamimplies that there is no separation between G‑d and the world; the world is G‑dliness.

As explained in sec. 5 of the maamar entitled Asher Bara 5689 (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim, Vol. 1) and sec. 8 of the maamar entitled Kol HaNeheneh, loc. cit.

See the maamar entitledKol HaNeheneh, loc. cit., which states that Avraham “desired to find virtuous qualities even among the inhabitants of Sodom.” That was the reason he prayed on their behalf.

Zohar, Vol. I, p. 106a.

See Sefer HaArachim–Chabad, the beginning of erech ahavas Yisrael, and the sources cited there.

See Tanya, ch. 32, which states that one’s love for a fellow Jew should encompass “even those who are far removed… and who are merely referred to as ‘created beings,’ ” i.e., their only virtue is that G‑d created them. See Sefer HaArachim–Chabad, loc. cit., and the sources cited there.

See Tanya, loc. cit.

The fact that such a person’s efforts are motivated by ahavas Yisrael is reflected in the conclusion of this point in Tanya, loc. cit.: “And even if not, he does not forfeit the reward for having fulfilled the mitzvah of loving one’s fellow man.”

Shabbos 89a, et al.

Bamidbar 14:20.

As mandated by Bava Metzia 31a.

It is possible to explain that the reason that Noach’s admonishments did not affect the people and motivate them to repent was that he was not sincerely committed to their welfare.

Toras Shalom (p. 18) explains that the reason Noach’s admonishments did not motivate the people to repent was that they were living in the two millennia of Tohu (chaos) that preceded the two millennia of Torah. That statement can be reconciled with the preceding explanation as follows: Noach’s admonishments were made in this manner because he lived prior to the two millennia of Torah. As explained in the section entitled “Joining the Highest Peaks with the Deepest Depths,” in his era, truly stepping beyond one’s own limits was not within man’s capacity.

See the end of the maamar entitled Lech Lecha, 5705; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 1, p. 18, also Vol. 20, p. 305ff.

See the series of maamarim entitled Samach Tisamach, 5657, p. 49ff. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 2, p. 421, which explains that the fact that joy breaks through limitations indicates that the factor that leads to joy must also possess an unlimited dimension, for an effect is dependent on its cause.

See Kuntreis Inyana shel Toras HaChassidus, sec. 15, which explains that the fact that the transition from non-being to being requires an unlimited power is one of the proofs for the statement that bringing existence into being stems from G‑d’s essential power.

Correspondingly, man’s Divine service in this era was primarily prompted by an arousal from Above, as explained in the section entitled “Guided from Above or Working on One’s Own.”

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 15, p. 52ff., which explains that it was for this reason – that the virtue manifest in the world was unrelated to the inner dimension of the world as it exists in its own right – that G‑d considered the possibility of totally obliterating all humanity, as stated in Bereishis 6:7. In contrast, after the Flood as described in Parshas Noach, G‑d took an oath to maintain the existence of the world in an ongoing manner. See Bereishis 8:22.

The reason is that the concept of G‑d’s power being entirely limitless is accepted as a given. See also the section entitled “Counting to Three.”

The main text explains that the joy of Parshas Bereishis is imperfect because that parshah reflects revelation from Above and does not relate to the world as it exists within its own context. Seemingly, that explanation does not correlate with the words quoted from the adage of the Rebbe Rayatz at the outset: that the fact that the joy of Parshas Bereishis is imperfect is because of the events mentioned at the end of the parshah. Nevertheless, the two points are complementary: The drawback resulting from the fact that in the era described in Parshas Bereishis, the world was maintained only as a result of G‑d’s power from Above ultimately became manifest in the widespread decadence that led to G‑d’s desire to obliterate all existence, as described at the end of the parshah. For, as explained above, (see footnote 72), the created beings had not begun the task of refinement.

Similar concepts apply with regard to man’s Divine service: The fact that in these two millennia man’s Divine service was primarily a result of revelation from Above (as stated in footnote 71), resulted in the widespread decadence described at the end of Parshas Bereishis (see Bereishis 6:5). The rationale is that when light is drawn down as an arousal from Above, as the light is drawn down, it becomes progressively reduced, and ultimately, the effect of its radiance ceases entirely.

Even Avraham’s birth (independent of his Divine service) had an effect on the world. This is evident from the fact that Iyar, the month in which he was born, is called ziv, “radiance,” because “the Patriarchs, who illuminated the world, were born in it”* (Rosh HaShanah 11a). Nevertheless, this occurred prior to the two millennia of Torah and was merely a preliminary step that prepared the world for the Divine service of that subsequent era. It is therefore located in Parshas Noach, because it represented the final stages and consummation of the refinement of the world, as described in that Torah reading.

* See the commentaries on that passage who reconcile that statement with the preceding statements in that passage, which relate that the Patriarchs were born at the end of the month of Nissan.

In the talk from which the adage of the Rebbe Rayatz quoted at the outset was taken, the Rebbe Rayatz states that the virtue of our Patriarch Avraham (who is the source of the true joy of Parshas Lech Lecha)is that he was the first “who with self-sacrifice dedicated himself to spreading the awareness of G‑dliness throughout the world.”

The dedication to spreading the awareness of G‑dliness to the extent of self-sacrifice is a result of the interrelation of the higher, spiritual and lower, material realms. See the section entitled “Joining the Highest Peaks with the Deepest Depths” and footnote 49.

ספר השיחות תש״ב ע׳ 30. הועתק (בקיצור) בהיום יום ע׳ קא.

ע״ז ט, א.

ראה אוה״ת ח״ש ד״ה וה׳ ברך ס״ב: בלק״ת מהאריז״ל ר״פ לך (קכו, א ואילך).

ראה בארוכה ספר הערכים־חב״ד ע׳ אברהם אבינו סעיף ד', וש״נ.

שמו״ר פי״ב, ג. תנחומא וארא טו.

שבת פח, א. וראה בארוכה לקו״ש ח״ב ע׳ 302, ובכ״מ.

ראה בארוכה לקו״ש חט״ו ע׳ 51 ואילך.

ש"בא בכדי לטהר את כל הארץ" (תו״א ח, ד. וראה גם בהמצויין לקמן הערה 29).

ראה עד״ז לקו״ש ח״ב שם ועוד (לענין חודש הראשון השני והשלישי). ח״ט ע׳ 27 (לענין ביהמ״ק ראשון שני ושלישי).

פרש״י ר״פ נח, מב״ר ותנחומא שם (וראה לקו״ש ח״ה ע׳ 36 הערה 2).

וגם פי׳ הראשון ברש״י שם (מאגדת בראשית פ״ד. תנחומא באבער נח ט) – "הואיל והזכירו סיפר בשבחו״ – שייך לעבודת נח, כמשנ״ת בלקו״ש שם (ע׳ 45-6 ובהערה 58).

בראשית ה, כח ואילך. ו, ח.

וכ״ה גם בפשטות הענינים, שסיפור המאורעות דנח (כשלעצמו) מתחיל בפ' נח, משא״כ לידת נח וכו׳ עד ונח מצא חן בעיני ה׳ הם פרט ב״ספר (ספירת) תולדות אדם" (בראשית ה, א וברש״י), ראה בארוכה בלקו״ש שם ע׳ 40; ועד״ז הוא בנוגע ללידת א״א וכו׳ דסיום פ׳ נח, שהוא הגמר והסיום ד״אלה תולדות שם" (נח יא, יוד).

ראה בכ״ז לקו״ש שם ע׳ 45-6 ובהערות שם.

תו״א פרשתנו יא, ג. תו״ח שם פג, סע״ד ואילך. אוה״ת שם (כרך ו׳) תתרעה, ב ואילך [ובלקו״ת לג״פ עז, א־ב (וראה גם אוה״ת שם (כרך ד׳) תרפד, ב. תרפז, ב), שויאמר ה׳ אל אברם לך לך גו׳ ("שיהא יורד ונמשך למטה") הוא כענין ביטול הגזירה דמ״ת, עיי״ש].

ואף שהתחלת ב״א תורה הייתה בהיות אברהם בן נ״ב שנה, בהיותו עדיין בחרן (ע״ז שם) – ההכנה למ״ת שעשה הותחלה (רק) לאחרי "לך לך". ולהעיר שגם ״ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן – דשעבידו לאורייתא" (פרשתנו יב, ה. תרגום שם), ענין התחלת ב״א תורה (ע״ז שם. רש״י שם) – נאמר בתורה בפ׳ לך לך (אף שזה הי׳ לפנ״ז). וראה הערה הבאה.

ראה בארוכה מקומות שבהערה הקודמת. ועפ״ז תובן קושיית התוס׳ (ד״ה וגמירי ע״ז שם) "ואע״ג דכתיב ואברם בן חמש שנים ושבעים שנה בצאתו מחרן"

– דלכאורה תמוה (כמו שהקשה במהרש״א שם), ש״הגם שהי׳ אז בן ע״ה אמר הכתוב שפיר שלקח עמו אז הנפש אשר עשו כבר בחרן בהיותו בר נ״ב״ –

כי כיון שההכנה למ״ת הותחלה רק ביציאתו מחרן לא״י – מסתבר, שגם התקופה דב״א תורה הותחלה רק אז; ועל זה מתרץ בתוס׳ ״שתי יציאות הוו״ – דמכיון שגם בהיותו בן נ״ב שנה יצא מחרן לא״י*, שייך זה כבר להתחלת ב״א תורה (אף שההכנה למ״ת הותחלה רק (ביציאה השני׳,) בהיותו בן ע״ה שנה – מקומות שבהערה הקודמת. וראה תו״א שם, ד).

וע״פ מ״ש בסדר הדורות (ב״א כג, עיי״ש) ש״ויאמר ה׳ אל אברם לך לך גו׳" הי׳ ביציאה הראשונה** – נמצא, שבהתחלת ב״א תורה הי׳ גם הענין ד״לך לך" [שהוא כענין ביטול הגזירה דמ״ת, ראה הערה הקודמת].

*) ואף ש״הנפש אשר עשו בחרן" הי׳ לפני היציאה – יש לומר, שכוונת הש״ס (לפי תירוץ התוס׳) ב״מואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן . . בההיא שעתא בר חמשין ותרתי הוה" היא (לא להזמן שעשו את הנפש, כי אם) להזמן שבו מדובר הפסוק ד״ויקח גו׳ ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן ויצאו ללכת ארצה כנען גו'", שאז (בעת שלקח את הנפש גו׳ מחרן לא״י) הותחלו ב״א תורה.

**) בסה״ד שם, שיציאתו מחרן בפעם הראשונה (ואמירת "לך לך") הייתה בהיותו בן נ״ה שנה. אבל לפי מ״ש התוס׳ שיציאתו הראשונה הייתה בהיותו בן נ״ב שנה – מסתבר, שגם אמירת ״לך לך" הייתה אז.

ראה לקמן הערה 66.

ב״ר פרשתנו פל״ט, ו (וראה מפרשי המדרש שם). פמ״ט, ט. ויק״ר רפ״י.

זח״א סז, ב. קו, א. שם בהשמטות רנד, ב. ח״ג טו, רע״א.

וירא יח, כג ואילך.

ח״א קו, א.

תשא לב, לב.

לשון הזהר שם.

ע״ד החילוק ד"בור סוד שאינו מאבד טיפה" ו״מעין המתגבר״ (אבות פ״ב מ״ט – לגירסת אדה״ז בסדורו) – ראה לקו״ש ח״י ע׳ 82.

לשון המשנה אבות פ״ה מ״ב.

ראה גם לקו״ש שם ע׳ 190.

פרש״י בראשית ה, כד. וראה ב״ר רפכ״ה.

ר״פ נח. פרש״י שם (בפי׳ הא׳) מסנהדרין קח, א.

סנהדרין שם, סע״א ואילך.

נח ח, כא־כב.

שם ט, יב ואילך.

ראה אוה״ת נח (כרך ג׳) תרמח, א ואילך (ושם תרנב, ב). סד״ה את קשתי תרנ״ד. לקו״ש חט״ו ע׳ 52 סעיף ה־ז.

פרש״י נח ז, ז. מב״ר פל״ב, ו.

ד״ה אתה גו׳ אשר בחרת ה׳ש״ת פ״ה. וראה גם במקומות שצויינו בהערה הבאה.

רמב״ם הל׳ ע״ז פ״א ה״ג. וראה בארוכה ד״ה כי חלק תרצ״ד (תשי״א) פ״ח. לך לך ה׳ש״ת פ״ג. ועוד.

סנהדרין קיא, א. שמו״ר פ״ו, ד. פרש״י ס״פ שמות.

נחמי׳ ט, ח.

ד״ה ולא נבוש תש״א פ״ג. וראה גם ד״ה אתה גו׳ שם (ספ׳׳ד ואילך).

ד״ה מי העיר תש״ג רפ״ט. וראה ד״ה כל הנהנה תרפ״ט (בסה״ט קונט׳ ח״א) פ״ט.

ועד״ז הוא בעבודת האבות (מתחיל מאברהם אבינו), שקיום המצוות שלהם פעל רק ברוחניות העולם (ראה לקו״ש ח״ג ע׳ 888, וש״נ), שגם לפני העבודה אינו "תחתון״ כ״כ.

ראה לקו״א להה״מ (סרס״א) עה״פ ותגזר אומר גו׳.

שו״ת הרשב״א ח״א סתי״ח. ס׳ החקירה להצ״צ ע׳ 68.

ואף שהגילוי דמ״ת הי׳ (רק) מצד ההמשכה מלמעלה, "והמטה הי׳ במקומו שלא הי׳ בו שום הזדככות" (המשך תער״ב ח״ב ע׳ תתקלא. וראה גם לקו״ת ראה כח, ב), וא״כ הוא לכאורה דוגמת אופן הא׳ שבהשפעת הרב לתלמיד – הרי במ״ת ניתן גם הכח שהעבודה שלאחרי מ״ת תפעול בהעולם שיהי׳ "כלי" (לא רק לדרגת האור שבערך העולם, אלא גם) לאוא״ס הבל״ג, ועד שלעת״ל יהי׳ העולם דירה לו ית׳, לו לעצמותו.

ומכיון שגם אז ישאר העולם בגשמיותו ואעפ״כ יהי׳ ״כלי״ ו״דירה״ כו׳ – ודלא כחיבור הרב ותלמיד (באופן הג׳), דזה שחושי התלמיד נעשים כמו חושי הרב, הוא ע״י שהתלמיד מתעלה (ו״יוצא") ממדריגתו הקודמת – נמצא, שבמ״ת ניתן הכח שהתחתונים גם כמו״ש בדרגת ״תחתונים״* יתחברו עם העליונים, ושחיבור זה יהי׳ גם מצד ענינם הם (באופן ד״כלי" כו׳).

*) כמובן מזה שאז תושלם הכוונה ד״דירה בתחתונים". ואף שענין ה״תחתון״ דעוה״ז הוא ״בענין הסתר אורו ית׳״ (תניא פל״ו) – מ״מ, מכיון שגם אז לא יתבטל הצמצום (שרש וסיבת ההסתר דעוה״ז הגשמי), וזה שהגשמי יהי׳ דירה לו ית׳ הוא ע״י שחשך הצמצום (גופא) יהפך לאור (המשך הנ״ל ע׳ תתקל. תתקלב) (שענין זה (הפיכת החשך לאור) א״א להיות מצד ה״גדרים" ד״אור וחשך״ (שהרי הם הפכים), ורק בכח העצמות (ראה המשך ר״ה תרצ״ה פל״ד)) – נמצא, שמצד ה״גדרים" ד״עולם", יהי׳ "תחתון" גם אז. וראה לקו״ש חי״ב ע׳ 75 הערה 30. ועצ״ע בכ״ז.

ראה תורת שלום ע׳ 128. ד״ה באתי לגני תשי״ב פ״ד.

כי כשחסר בהענין דחיבור עליונים ותחתונים – גם כאשר הנברא (תחתון) נותן את עצמו להשלים כוונה העליונה (דנתאוה כו׳ דירה בתחתונים), הוא רק עד כמה שהכוונה נוגעת אליו, ואינו מסור כ״כ להכוונה העליונה גופא.

קדושים יט, יז.

זח״א סח, א.

להעיר מזהר שם, שע״י ש״אתרי בהו כל יומא ויומא״ – אע״ג ד״לא קבילו מיני׳״ – “קיים בנפשי’ . . ואתה את נפשך הצלת”.

ראה בכ״ז לקו״ש חט״ו ע׳ 40 ואילך.

ושלא לטובת עצמו כלל, כידוע מעלת המסנ״פ דא״א על מסנ״פ דרע״ק (סה״מ ה׳ש״ת ע׳ ו, טו, 30).

וירא כא, לג. סוטה י, סע״א ואילך. ועוד.

כהדיוק “א־ל עולם״ – ולא “א־ל העולם” (לקו״ת תבא מב, ד. מג, ג. המשך תער״ב פרק קלג. ועוד).

ד״ה אשר ברא תרפ״ט (בסה׳׳מ קונט׳ ח״א) פ״ה. ד״ה כל הנהנה שם פ״ח.

להעיר מד״ה כל הנהנה שם, שא״א הי׳ “חפץ למצוא איזה ענינים טובים גם באנשי סדום”, ומצד זה התפלל עליהם.

זח״א קו, סע״א.

ראה ספר הערכים־חב״ד ע׳ אהבת ישראל בתחילתו, וש״נ.

ראה תניא פרק לב: שאף הרחוקים כו׳ ולכן נקראי׳ בשם בריות בעלמא. וראה בארוכה ספר הערכים שם ע׳ תרכג־ז, וש״נ.

תניא שם.

וכמו שמסיים בתניא שם: והן לא לא הפסיד שכר מצות אהבת ריעים.

שבת פט, א. ועוד.

ב״מ לא, א.

ויש לומר, שזהו גם הטעם מה שתוכחתו של נח לא פעלה עליהם שיתעוררו בתשובה. ולהעיר מתורת שלום (ע’ 18), דזה שנח לא פעל עליהם שיעשו תשובה הוא לפי שהיו בב״א תהו לפני ב״א תורה – והרי גם מה שהתוכחה של נח הי׳ באופן כזה הוא לפי שהי׳ לפני ב״א תורה, כנ״ל סעיף ז׳.

ראה סד״ה לך לך תש״ה. לקו״ש ח״א ע’ 18. לקו״ש ח״כ ע׳ 305 ואילך.

ראה בארוכה שמח תשמח תרנ״ז ע’ 49 ואילך. וראה לקו״ש ח״ב (ע׳ 421), שמזה מובן שגם הדבר הגורם לשמחה הו״ע שלמעלה מהגבלה.

ראה קונט׳ ענינה של תורת החסידות סט״ו, שזהו אחד הטעמים על זה שההתהוות היא דוקא בכח העצמות.

ועד״ז הוא גם בנוגע לעבודת האדם, שהעבודה אז הייתה (בעיקר) מצד “למעלה״, כנ״ל סעיף ה׳.

ראה בארוכה לקו״ש חט״ו ס״ע 52 ואילך. ושם, שמטעם זה הי׳ יכול להיות הקס״ד ד״אמחה גו׳” (בראשית ו, ז). משא״כ לאחרי המבול שבפרשת נח נעשה קיום העולם באופן ד״לא ישבותו” (נח ח, כב), עיי״ש בארוכה.

ומה שבהשיחה (שבהערה 1) מקשר ענין זה (שהשמחה דפ׳ בראשית אינה בשלימות) עם סוף הסדרה – יש לומר, לפי שזה גופא מה שקיום העולם דפ׳ בראשית הוא מצד ״למעלה״ – בא בגילוי ע״י הענין ד״אמחה גו׳” שבסוף הסדרה, כנ״ל בהערה הקודמת.

ועד״ז הוא גם בנוגע לעבודת האדם, דזה שהעבודה אז הייתה (בעיקר) רק מצד ״למעלה” (כנ״ל הערה 63) בא בגילוי ע״י הענין ד״רבה רעת האדם” שבסוף הסדרה (ו, ה). כי הסדר בהמשכת האור מלמעלמ״ט (כשההמשכה היא רק מצד ״למעלה”) הוא, שכל מה שהאור נמשך למטה יותר הוא מתמעט, ועד שנפסק לגמרי.

שגם ע״י לידתו (גם לפני העבודה) נפעל בעולם, ועד שחודש אייר נקרא “זיו” לפי “שנולדו בו זיותני עולם” (ר״ה יא, א). אלא שענין זה (שנפעל לפני ב״א תורה) – הוא רק הכשרת העולם (שיוכל להיות בו אח״כ העבודה דב״א תורה), ולכן שייך זה לזיכוך המטה דפ׳ נח. ורק שבזיכוך המטה גופא הוא הגמר והסיום (שלימות הזיכוך), הסוף דפ׳ נח.

ראה בהשיחה שבהערה 1, שמעלת אברהם אבינו [שמשו״ז – ״די אמת פריילעכע וואָך איז . . פרשת לך לך"] היא, שהוא הי׳ הראשון "וועלכער האט זיך מוסר נפש געווען אויף מפרסם צו זיין געטלעכקייט אויף דער וועלט״ – והרי ענין זה (מסנ״פ לפרסם אלקות בעולם) בא דוקא מצד הענין ד״חיבור עליונים ותחתונים" (ראה לעיל סעיף ז׳ ובהערה 42).