Vayeitzei: The Purpose of the Soul’s Descent to This World

Avos 2:12.

Mishlei 3:6.

See the talk by the Rebbe Rayatz, Simchas Torah, 5681 (Sefer Hasichos 5681, p. 9)

Bereishis 28:20-22.

Paneach Raza and Rivo, Bereishis 28:22; the fifth of the questions raised by Abarbanel at the beginning of Parshas Vayei­tzei; the second of the questions raised by Akeidas Yitzchak, shaar 25; the sixth of the questions raised by Alshech, Bereishis 28:20. See also Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi to Rashi, Bereishis 28:21; Divrei David to Rashi, Bereishis 28:22; et al.

See Divrei David and Maskil LeDavid to Rashi, Bereishis 28:22, et al. who explain Rashi’s words according to their simple meaning – that his vow obligated him to perform acts of service beyond his obligations. This, however, is not a sufficient explanation. Yaakov was one of the Patriarchs, whom the Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 47:6, 82:6) describes as G‑d’s chariot, which Tanya, ch. 23, interprets as referring to a person who follows G‑d’s will without any thought like a chariot is steered by its driver. It is understandable that, for Yaakov, even such service – i.e., going beyond the measure of the law, serving with a generous spirit, and the like – would be performed without the expectation of a reward. Hence, his commitment would not have been made conditionally.

See Ramban, Bereishis 28:20, who states, “Furthermore, according to the simple meaning of the verse…,” explaining that Yaakov was not stipulating a condition, but rather stating the future sequence of events. See also the commentary of Baalei Tosafos, Bereishis, loc. cit., et al.

To cite a similar – but not exactly parallel – explanation: Rambam (Hilchos Teshivah 9:1; Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ch. 10) explains that the Torah promises the Jews material benefits for their observance of the mitzvos not as a reward, but rather as a means to facilitate their observance.

See also Kli Yakar, Bereishis 28:21, who statesthat when Yaakov asked for G‑d to protect him, he was requesting Divine protection from the four primary sins: idolatry, murder, adultery, and lashon hara (malicious gossip), for were He not to protect him from these sins, there would be no House of G‑d, for it would be destroyed because of these sins.

Bereishis Rabbah 70:4 and Rashbam also interpret the verses in a similar manner.

Radak, Seforno, and Kli Yakar also interpret the verses in this manner.

Alshech, loc. cit. (the fifth question); Gur Aryeh and Divrei David, commenting on Rashi (Bereishis 28:21); Levush,
Bereishis 28:20; et al.

True, Yaakov’s return to his father’s home would also be dependent on G‑d, as Rashi (Bereishis 28:21) states, “As (G‑d) promised me, ‘I will return you to the land.’ ” However, the wording Yaakov chose emphasizes his own activity.

See Rashi’s commentary at the conclusion of Parshas Noach.

Cf. commentaries to Makkos 7b.

Rashi, Bereishis 28:21. See also Rashi, Bereishis 32:5.

A closer similitude is found in Rambam’s Shemoneh Perakim, ch. 6, which speaks of the contrast between a perfectly pious man and one who conquers his desires.

Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 7:4.

Bereishis 1:28.

Ibid., 28:2-3.

Vayikra Rabbah 36:5. See Pesachim 56a; Sifri to Devarim 6:4; et al.

Moreover, this process continued even after Yaakov left Charan and journeyed to Eretz Yisrael. As the Maggid of Mezritch relates (quoted in Or HaMe’ir, explained in Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 5, p. 869a ff.), the inner reason Lavan pursued Yaakov after Yaakov left his household was because Lavan brought with him sparks of G‑dliness from Charan that Yaakov had yet to elevate.

This concept – that a Jew’s responsibility is to elevate his portion of the world – is also alluded to in the revealed dimension of Torah Law and, indeed, even in the written Torah itself. Thus, the literal meaning of Bereishis 23:17 is “The field of Efron ascended.” As Rashi and our Sages interpret the verse, “the field was elevated”: instead of remaining the property of an ordinary person, it became Avraham’s. According to Chassidus, the intent is that through Avraham’s purchasing it and using it for a holy purpose, it was elevated and its spiritual potential revealed.

Embedded in every element of existence are sparks of G‑dliness that seek to ascend and unite with their Divine source. Man’s involvement with the material dimensions of existence is intended to facilitate this process.

Bereishis 30:43. See Torah Or, p. 23c, et al.

See Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Lech Lecha, sec. 9; Bereishis Rabbah 40:6. See Ramban, Bereishis 12:6, 10, 14:1, 26:1, and 32:4.

Or HaChayim, Bereishis 28:14, quoted and explained in Kitzurim VeHaaros LeTanya, p. 57, and the maamar entitled Vayeitzei, 5630 [Toras Shmuel, 5730, p. 29ff.].

See Zohar, Vol. I, p. 147a, which states that this verse refers to the exile. See also Zohar, Vol. 1, p. 23b (cited in Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 5, p. 854a); Bereishis Rabbah 68:13. See Shelah, p. 292b, which states that Yaakov’s departure to Charan also alludes to the exile of the Jewish people. Consult that text.

See the maamar entitled Vayeitzei, loc. cit., which also explains that there are two dimensions to the concept of a descent for the sake of an ascent. Nevertheless, the two concepts are explained in that maamar slightly differently than here:

a) the ascent of the G‑dly soul to a level above its source that is brought about through the refinement of the body and the animal soul* – which relates to the second concept mentioned in the main text; and

b) “to draw down G‑d’s dwelling into the lower realms… because the Holy One, blessed be He, desired a dwelling in the lower realms.”

The intent when describing this second aspect as an aliyah, “ascent,” is not a reference to the ascent experienced by the soul but rather the loftiness that will be manifest in G‑d’s dwelling in the lower realms, or alternatively to the elevation of the elements of the lowly realms themselves, as stated in Tanya, at the end of ch. 31, (p. 40b): “This descent is for the purpose of an ascent, to elevate the animal soul as a whole and connect it to G‑d.”

* As explained in many sources in Chassidus, the body and the animal soul are rooted in the realm of Tohu, which is a higher spiritual rung than Tikkun, the immediate source of the G‑dly soul, and through refining the body and the animal soul, the G‑dly soul taps into that higher source and elevates itself.

Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 73a; Sefer HaMaamarim 5706, pp. 65, 66; et al. Those sources explain the connection between the verse and the Divine service of teshuvah.

Koheles 12:7. See Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 71c, which explains the connection between this verse and the Divine service of teshuvah.

Before its descent to the material plane, the soul existed in the spiritual realms above and experienced the love and fear of G‑d. On that level, it can be compared to a tzaddik. After its descent to this physical world, it feels distance and must strive to establish a connection with Him. These efforts resemble the Divine service of a baal teshuvah.

See Tanya, ch. 36.

The lofty state to which the soul is elevated has two dimensions: one resulting from the refinement of the world itself, as will be explained in the section entitled “Beyond One’s Own Desire for G‑dliness,” and one resulting from the fact that through that refinement, G‑d’s intent for a dwelling in the lower realms is brought to consummation, as will be explained in the section entitled “Not for Its Own Sake.” See also footnote 60 below.

Avos 2:12.

Mishlei 3:6; cited and explained by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, sec. 231.

“Personal matters” is used as a translation for divrei reshus, which literally means “permitted matters” or “matters left to one’s own discretion.”

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 8, p. 108, and the sources mentioned there. In that source, the Rebbe explains that even though the Torah is studied by people on this physical plane and the mitzvos are performed with material entities, these activities are nevertheless by definition categorized as “holy.” As such, they do not relate entirely to the material dimensions of our world. By contrast, when one serves G‑d by carrying out his personal affairs for the sake of Heaven, he brings G‑dliness into the lowest dimensions of material existence.

See the end of the maamar entitled Malka U’Malchesa, 5697, and Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, p. 44d, which explain that the comparison between the Divine service of Torah scholars and businessmen correlates to that between the Divine service of tzaddikim and baalei teshuvah.

Rambam, Hilchos Geirushin 2:20.

Rambam, loc. cit. Rambam is speaking about an instance in which others are compelling a person to perform a mitzvah. How much more so does the concept apply to the situation described in the main text in which a person is compelling himself.

A tzaddik’s Divine service does not focus on the transformation of his animal soul. Instead, it reveals the potentials within his G‑dly soul. Similarly, when a person is observing a mitzvah, he is giving expression to his G‑dly soul without focusing on his animal soul. Even though he may have had to overcome the challenges posed by the animal soul to perform the mitzvah, the animal soul does not participate in the performance of the mitzvah itself.

See Tanya, the beginning of ch. 7.

See Kuntreis Motzei Shabbos Kodesh, Parshas Chayei Sarah, 5738,sec. 26, and footnotes (Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 20, pp. 334-335). In that source, the Rebbe explains how using the objects of one’s material desires “for the sake of Heaven” causes his Divine service to encompass even those matters which his animal soul desires.

A baal teshuvah transforms his nature, redirecting the thrust of his energy from seeking the satisfaction of his material desires to a commitment to fulfilling G‑d’s will. Similarly, a person’s animal soul wants to perform physical activities for his own satisfaction. Through his Divine service, the person redirects the focus of his actions and carries them out “for the sake of Heaven.”

See the explanations of “the first quality” in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 249, footnote 59, which relates to the point mentioned in the main text.

Not only “can” the person repent, ultimately, “he will certainly repent” (Tanya, the end of ch. 39; the Alter Rebbe’s Hilchos Talmud Torah, 4:3.)

In the section entitled “Not Merely One Man’s Journey.”

This virtue is also realized by a person who is a baal teshuvah in a simple sense, i.e., one who repents after sinning. His personal ascent reflects a unique positive quality – that even after he sinned, he returns to G‑d, as explained above in the section entitled “How Deep the Bond.”

In addition, since “his intentional sins are transformed into merits” (Yoma 86b), these “merits” elevate him to a higher rung (Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p.26c; Derech Mitzvosecha, p. 191a).

The transformation of the baal teshuva’s sins an effect that extends beyond his own self. As explained inthe maamar entitled Padeh BeShalom, 5709, sec. 1, the Divine service of the righteous is focused on their own spiritual advances. Teshuvah “has an effect on an entity outside the persons’ selves.” This reflects the ascent achieved by the soul through its descent to the physical plane. “It achieves the level of a baal teshuvah… and illuminates the world.”

Nevertheless, the wording in that maamar appears to imply that the ascent through teshuvah which the soul achieves is not the ascent achieved because of its illuminating the world, but rather the very achievement of illuminating the world itself. See the section entitled “Not For Its Own Sake” below and footnote 60.

Tanya, ch. 2.

See the maamar entitled Tanya Shiva Devarim (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim, Vol. 2, p. 394a), which refers to Tanya, ch. 19, which states: “A person’s soul… naturally desires and yearns… to cling to its root and source.”

That maamar explains that this desire is not self-oriented, for when the soul clings to its source, it will – as Tanya, loc. cit. states – “become absolutely nullified and be subsumed entirely, with no existence of its own. Nevertheless, since this is the soul’s natural desire, this desire “does not cause the soul to nullify its nature. How much more so does it not lose its essential form.” By bonding with G‑d in such a manner, the soul fulfills its natural desire and tendency; it does not transcend its inherent nature.

That maamar and (similarly, the maamarim entitled Vechol HaAmRo’im, 5678, and Lerei’ach She­manecha, 5706, sec. 6,) explain that, by refining the animal soul and motivating it to also be aroused with a desire for G‑dliness, the G‑dly soul reaches an even higher rung. Since the animal soul’s desire for G‑dliness runs contrary to its nature, when the G‑dly soul brings about such a change within the animal soul, it has a reciprocal “effect on the G‑dly soul, which also nullifies its nature.”

In the above source (op. cit., 394b), the Rebbe Rayatz proceeds to explain that, as a result, the G‑dly soul “goes beyond the bounds of its vessels and transcends all limits entirely.”

The concepts explained resemble the explanation given in the maamar entitled Lerei’ach Shemanecha, loc. cit., regarding the advantage of the ascent achieved by the G‑dly soul through refining the animal soul, motivating it to also be aroused with a desire for G‑dliness over the advantage of the ascent the G‑dly soul achieves by overcoming the challenges with which the animal soul confronts it.

Overcoming those challenges requires the G‑dly soul to tap its inner resources of strength and realize its own potential. However, as explained in the previous footnote, by motivating the animal soul to a desire for G‑dliness, the G‑dly soul receives the capacity to transcend itself and draw on loftier, transcendent energies.

Previously, in the section titled “How Deep the Bond” the Rebbe had focused on the heights achieved by the soul when it serves G‑d with material things, i.e., the emphasis was on the strength of the soul’s connection to G‑d expressed through such service. Here, the emphasis is on the soul’s power of achievement – that it can transform a material entity to a medium for the expression of G‑dliness.

Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p.37d.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 12, p. 75, and footnotes, which focus on similar concepts.

As explained above, the soul’s being and nature are fundamentally limited. By serving as a medium to express G‑d’s transcendent oneness, the soul rises above its own limits and becomes subsumed in that unity.

This resembles the ascent achieved by the G‑dly soul through its refinement of the animal soul (see footnote 46, above.)

However, even the ascent that is achieved through refining the animal soul is relatively limited. Since the animal soul is interrelated to the G‑dly soul (see Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim, Vol. 1, p. 266b ff.), the new development, and, therefore, the ascent achieved through its refinement is not comparable to the new development and the ascent achieved through refining the world at large.

Avos, the end of ch. 6.

Kiddushin 82a.

Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 28d.

Tanya, ch. 37. The Alter Rebbe’s statements in that source continue and develop the concepts he stated in ch. 36, that the purpose of creation is to make a dwelling for G‑d in the lower realms.

The Rebbe speaks of “his portion in the world,” for every soul was allotted certain sparks of G‑dliness to elevate and, indeed, the fulfillment of the soul’s life mission is dependent on the accomplishment of this task (Kesser Shem Tov, sec. 194).

Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Naso, sec. 16, Tanya, ch. 36.

G‑d’s Essence is ein sof in the ultimate sense; thus, describing it as “unlimited” is also inappropriate (the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, p. 167, et al.).

G‑d’s desire for a dwelling in the lower realms stems from His Essence. Accordingly, it is possible to say that the ascent achieved by the soul and the reward granted it due to its fulfillment of G‑d’s desire for a dwelling in the lower realms is loftier than the ascent achieved by the soul because of the revelation of G‑d’s unlimited oneness, as explained in the section entitled “Beyond One’s Own Desire for G‑dliness.” G‑d’s unlimited oneness is one of His revealed qualities. Thus, it and the ascent the soul achieves by revealing it are lower than His Essence and the ascent achieved by the soul because of its fulfillment of His essential desire.

It is possible to say that, with regard to the soul’s Divine service, the ascent it achieves as a result of fulfilling G‑d’s intent for a dwelling is that it will become conscious that its entire existence is, to borrow the wording of Avos and Kiddushin, loc. cit., “for the sake of His glory” and “to serve its Creator,” i.e., it will lose all sense of self, rising above even its desire for spiritual perfection.

Likkutei Torah, Devarim 29a.

See Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 73a; Sefer HaMaamarim 5706, pp. 65, 66; et al.

It must be noted that Likkutei Torah, Devarim, loc. cit., which places the emphasis on the souls’ mission of creating a dwelling for G‑d, also states that the souls “descend… for the sake of an ascent.” However, that maamar concludes: “Nevertheless, this ascent alone is not the ultimate purpose.”

See the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, pp. 3, 8 and the maamar entitled Mitzvasa Mishetishka HaChamah, 5678, which are both based on Tanya, ch. 36.

The oneness of G‑d encompasses all existence. Even entities that see themselves as distinct and separate are truly nothing more than expressions of Him.

This conception, however, leaves room for an entity to see itself as an expression of G‑d. On the other hand, ein od, “there is nothing else,” implies simply that He is the only existence.

The entities in the higher, spiritual realms appreciate G‑dliness and see themselves as expressions of Him. Therefore, they express His oneness and that endows their existence with a certain degree of validity. By contrast, material existence is obviously transitory and not genuine. It cannot see itself as true existence. What is true and genuine? Only G‑d. There is nothing else, and all existence reflects Him.

To highlight the difference between these two levels: On the first level, all existence sees itself as an expression of G‑dliness and its existence is “as nothing” in comparison to the G‑dly light that brings it into being,. Nevertheless, it has a certain validity, for G‑d brought it into being and maintains its existence.

On the second level, all that exists is Him. Existence doesn’t see itself at all, for He is the totality of all being.

See the extensive explanation in the maamar entitled Vela­kachtem Lechem, 5661. See also the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, p. 438. As explained in these sources: Since the entities of the higher realms see themselves as expressions of G‑d, they ascribe a certain degree of self-importance to themselves.

As explained at length in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 12, p. 73ff.; Vol. 14, p. 123, the concept of a dwelling in the lower realms implies that it will be brought about by the people living in that realm, for in that way it will encompass that realm as it exists within its own context. If, by contrast, the dwelling would be established through the revelation of G‑dly light, it would not be complete, since it will not relate to the lower realms as they exist within their own context.

To explain by analogy, the difference would be comparable to two students: One understands a concept thoroughly based on his teacher’s explanations. However, he sees the concept only in terms of those explanations. He cannot explain it in his own words. A second has internalized the idea to the point at which it is no longer only the teacher’s idea; the student has made it his own. He can explain it with his own examples and terms.

See the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, loc. cit., “The reflection of the concept of ein od (see note 63) in actual Divine service is the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven manifest through one who serves G‑d as a servant.” See the following footnote.

This reflects the loftier rung achieved by a “simple servant” over that achieved by a “faithful servant” (the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, p. 326ff.).

As explained in that source, a faithful servant recognizes the virtues of his master and therefore, commits himself full-heartedly to serving him. Nevertheless, his commitment does not involve utter self-transcendence because his service is motivated by his understanding. On the contrary, his self-fulfillment comes through this service.

A “simple servant,” by contrast, has no appreciation of the virtues of his master. He serves him solely because he is compelled to. He doesn’t see himself as having any importance whatsoever. His service is thus motivated by his master rather than his own self.

To extend this concept: According to Jewish Law (Rashba, Bava Metzia 96a), a servant is considered nothing more than an extension of his master. He has no identity of his own. Thus, as stated in the previous footnote, it is through the Jews’ acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s service that they manifest the concept of ein od, that there is nothing else but G‑d.

In a simple sense, it is possible to explain that the rationale that the descent of the soul is “for the sake of an ascent” reflects the perspective of the revealed levels of G‑dliness,* while the explanation that the soul’s descent is solely to bring about a dwelling for G‑d reflects the perspective of G‑d’s Essence.

To cite a parallel: As explained in the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, p. 4ff., p. 446, see also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 6, p. 19ff. and footnotes there, there are two rationales given for creation as a whole: a) so that G‑d make Himself known (Zohar, Vol. II, p. 42b) and b) that His powers be revealed in their fullness (the beginning of Eitz Chayim; Shaar HaHakdamos, hakdamah 3). These rationales reflect the revealed levels of G‑dliness. However, the ultimate purpose for creation, G‑d’s desire for a dwelling in the lower realms, transcends reason and relates to His Essence.

Nevertheless, as will be explained in the main text, the rationale that the soul’s descent is for the sake of an ascent** also relates to the ultimate intent of establishing a dwelling for G‑d in the lower realms that is rooted in His Essence.

* In the body of the footnote, it was explained that the rationale that the soul’s descent was for the purpose of an ascent relates only to the revealed levels of G‑dliness, but that the ultimate purpose of that descent is rooted in His Essential desire for a dwelling in the lower realms.

That explanation is not a contradiction to the statement in Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 73a, “the ultimate resolution of the question why the souls’ descent to this physical plane is that… through their descent into the body, they attain the virtue of becoming baalei teshuvah.”

True, that virtue only reflects a revealed level of G‑dliness. Nevertheless, there is no contradiction because G‑d’s desire for a dwelling in the lower realms cannot be termed “a resolution to a question,” because it transcends all logic and reason. As the Rebbe Rashab states in the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, p. 7ff., “With regard to a desire, no questions are asked.”

As explained in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 6, p. 21, G‑d’s desire for a dwelling in the lower reams stems from His Essence, and His Essence – and thus, also His essential desires – transcends all logic and definition.

However, G‑d’s essential desire for creation and the souls’ descent also filters through the revealed levels of G‑dliness and on that level, there are reasons for the souls’ descent and a resolution can be given to the question why the souls descended – namely, that they will ascend to a higher rung. In that context, Likkutei Torah, loc. cit., states: “There are many resolutions given to this question, but the ultimate resolution is that… they attain the virtue of becoming baalei teshuvah.”

** Similar concepts also apply regarding the reasons for creation given by the Zohar and Etz Chayim. These reasons also relate to the ultimate intent of establishing a dwelling for G‑d in the lower realms that is rooted in His Essence, as explained in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 6, p. 21, footnote 69.

See the section entitled, “Beyond One’s Own Desire for G‑dliness.”

The bittul that stems from G‑d’s oneness enables a person to manifest in his daily activities a bittul that resembles the bittul of a simple servant, one who actualizes the awareness of ein od, thatthere is nothing else but G‑d. Nevertheless, the resemblance is not complete, the bittul that stems from G‑d’s oneness is on a lesser level. See footnote 60, above.

As mentioned in several sources (see footnote 27), the soul’s descent to this physical plane is for the sake of the ascent. In the main text here, it is explained that the soul’s ascent is that it reaches a state of bittul. Seemingly, carrying out Divine service with bittul is seemingly merely a preparatory step for fulfilling G‑d’s intent of establishing a dwelling in the lower realms. Thus, explanation is necessary. How can it be postulated that the purpose of the soul’s descent is to reach this level of bittul, when the bittul is merely a preparatory step to achieve G‑d’s purpose?

In resolution, it is possible to say: The potential for the soul’s Divine service to establish a dwelling for G‑d exists only when characterized by bittul. Accordingly, were its Divine service not to be characterized by bittul, G‑d’s dwelling would be established by Him, as it were, and not through and as a result of man’s Divine service.

As such, just as man’s Divine service – i.e., that G‑d’s dwelling be established through man’s Divine service – is a fundamental element of G‑d’s dwelling in the lower realms and not merely a preparation for it,* so too, the necessity for man’s Divine service to be characterized by bittul is also an integral element of the dwelling. Thus, the ascent achieved by the soul – that it reaches a state of bittul – is not merely a preparatory step, but part of G‑d’s ultimate purpose.

* Were the dwelling not to be established by man’s Divine service, that dwelling would not be an integral part of this world, as man perceives it. Instead, it would be an extrinsic element that is not part of the natural definition of worldly existence. In such a conception, although the dwelling would be in this material world, man would feel as a guest in G‑d’s home.

By contrast, when man performs Divine service that creates the dwelling, he enables the conception of the world as G‑d’s dwelling to be perceived as an inherent characteristic of this realm itself – this is the way the world should truly be.

In the section entitled “Was Yaakov Driving a Bargain?”

See Tanya, ch. 5, which explains that mitzvos serve as “garments” for the soul, while the Torah serves not only as a garment, but also as food. See Tana D’bei Eliyahu Rabbah 27:9.

Cf. Tehillim 34:15.

See also Kli Yakar, Bereishis 28:20 that Yaakov’s request, “protect me,” was that “his soul be guarded from sin.”

See Toras Chayim (Bereishis, p. 26a-b), which states that the words “food and clothing” in Yaakov’s request are analogies for the Torah and its mitzvos and “returning in peace,” is an analogy to teshuvah.

Based on the statements in the main text and the explanation that Yaakov’s return refers to teshuvah, it is possible to explain why Yaakov phrased his request “if I return,” and not “if You cause me to return” (see the section entitled “Two and Two” and notes 9-10). Since G‑d’s influence descends and is enclothed in matters of this world, the motif of Divine empowerment is hidden and it appears that teshuvah comes from man’s own initiative, without being motivated from Above. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 9, p. 64, footnote 26.

On this basis, it is possible to understand the added dimension that the request “if I return” contributes beyond that implied by “If G‑d… will protect me,” even according to the interpretation that “If G‑d… will protect me” means protect me from sin (see footnote 72): Being protected from sin resembles the weakening of the yetzer hara(see the section entitled “Shifting Directions“ above). In such an instance, one perceives that he is being protected from Above.

The new dimension implied by the request “if I return,” is that even when a person is involved in worldly matters because of the desire of the animal soul (his personal Lavan), and he does not feel the motif of Divine empowerment, he nevertheless “will return in peace,” “unmarred by sin, without having learned from Lavan’s ways.”

Rashi, Bereishis 28:21.

In the section entitled “Beyond One’s Own Desire for G‑dliness.”

See the section entitled “Not for Its Own Sake.”

See the section entitled “Rashi or Ramban.”

The quote is taken from the end of Ramban’s introduction to his commentary on the Torah.

Yode’ei chen, translated as “those who know favor” is often used as a reference to the students of Kabbalah, for chen, חן, is understood as an acronym for chochmah nistarah, “hidden wisdom.”

See the note in Tanya, ch. 40 and also Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 26, and Torah Or, p. 17a, which cite the writings of the Arizal, which states that the study of Kabbalahrelates to the realm of Atzilus.

True, the consummate level of the soul’s ascent is that it reaches utter bittul, to the extent that it is conscious that its entire existence is for the sake of its Creator (see footnote 60 above). Nevertheless, the soul is conscious of the loftiness of its state of bittul.

This parallels the service of a “faithful servant” who performs his Divine service because he “is conscious of the loftiness and wondrous level of G‑d’s infinite light” (the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, p. 323). He carries out his Divine service as a servant “solely to fulfill G‑d’s will… and his intent is not focused on his own self at all” (ibid.). Nevertheless, because he appreciates the lofty value of consummating his Master’s desire, he wants to accomplish that mission and for that accomplishment to be identified with him (ibid., p. 321).

See the section entitled “Identifying with Utter Self-Transcendence.”

Indeed, the “simple servant” does not even seek to attain the lofty level of bittul. See footnote 84.

G‑d’s desire is, as reflected by the phrase, “this stone… will be the House of G‑d,” that a dwelling for Him be established in this material world.”

פרשתנו כח, כ ואילך.

פענח רזא וריב״א פרשתנו שם, כב. אברבנאל ריש פרשתנו (קושיא הה׳). עקידה שער כה (קושיא הב׳). אלשיך פרשתנו כח, כ (קושיא הו׳). וראה רא״ם לפרש״י שם, כא. דברי דוד שם כב. ועוד.

ע״ד הפשט בפרש״י – ראה דברי דוד ומשכיל לדוד שם כב (ועוד), שהנדר הי׳ לעשות מה שאינו מחוייב. אבל ביאור זה אינו מספיק כי מובן שאצל יעקב אבינו – שהאבות ה״ה המרכבה (ב״ר פמ״ז, ו. פפ״ב, ו. וראה תניא פכ״ג) – גם העבודה דענינים אלו (לפנים משורת הדין "פולחן דנדבה" וכיו״ב) הייתה שלא ע״מ לקבל פרס, ובמילא – בלי שום תנאי.

להעיר מרמב״ן שם, כ: ויתכן עוד ע״ד הפשט כו'. רבותינו בעה״ת שם. ועוד.

ע״ד (ולא ממש) בי׳ הרמב״ם הל׳ תשובה פ״ט (הקדמתו לפ׳ חלק).

ראה כלי יקר (שם, כא בסופו): כ״א לא ישמרו מן ד׳ ראשי עבירות אלו אז לא יהי׳ בית אלקים כי יחרב בעבורם.

וכן הוא לפי׳ המדרש (ב״ר פ״ע, ד) ורשב״ם.

ועד״ז ברד״ק. ספורנו. כלי יקר.

אלשיך שם (קושיא הה׳). גו״א דברי דוד לפרש״י שם, כא, לבוש שם, כ. ועוד.

אף שגם "ושבתי גו׳" הוא "כמו ש(הקב״ה) אמר לי והשיבותיך אל האדמה" (רש״י שם, כא).

פרש״י ס״פ נח.

לשון רש״י בפסוק זה. וראה רש״י וישלח לב, ה.

בדומה יותר – ראה פ״ו משמונה פרקים להרמב״ם.

רמב״ם הלכות תשובה פ״ז ה״ד.

תולדות כח, ב־ג.

ויק״ר פל״ו, ה. וראה פסחים נו, א. ספרי דברים ו, ד. ועוד.

וגם לאחר זה בדרכו מחרן לא״י – ראה תורת הה״מ (הובא באור המאיר) במה שרדף לבן אחר יעקב (נתבאר באוה״ת פרשתנו תתסט, א ואילך).

כמרומז גם בנגלה (בתשב״כ): ויקם שדה עפרון (ח״ש כג, יז ובדחז״ל עה״פ. פרש״י שם).

פרשתנו ל, מג. וראה תו״א כג, ג. ועוד.

פרשתנו כח, יד. הובא ונתבאר בקיצורים והערות לתניא ע' נז. ד״ח ויצא תר״ל.

ראה זהר ריש פרשתנו קמז, א: אוקי האי קרא בגלותא. שם כג, ב (הובא באוה״ת פרשתנו תתנד, א). ב״ר פס״ח, יג. ובשל״ה פרשתנו (רצב, ב): ענין ויצא יעקב רומז ג״כ לגלות. ע״ש.

ראה גם ד״ה ויצא שם, שמבאר ב׳ ענינים בירידה צורך עלי'. אלא שב׳ הענינים שבד״ה ויצא שם, הם: העלי׳ דנפה״א למעלה משרשה ע״י בירור הגוף ונפה״ב – שהוא (בכללות) ענין הב׳ שבפנים; ו״להמשיך דירה בתחתונים כו׳ כי נתאוה הקב״ה להיות לו דירה בתחתונים״ – שהכוונה בפשטות ב״עלי'" זו היא (לא להעלי׳ שנעשית בהנשמה, כי אם) למעלת הענין ד״דירה בתחתונים" גופא, או: להעלאת התחתונים ע״ד הלשון בתניא ספל״א (מ, ב) "ירידה זו היא צורך עלי׳ להעלות לה׳ כל נפש החיונית כו'".

ראה לקו״ת ר״פ האזינו.

לקו״ת בלק עג, סע״א. ד״ה ומעין תש״ו (וראה שם ספ״ג). ועוד.

ובזה גופא יש שני ענינים: מצד הענין דבירור העולם גופא (כדלקמן ס״ח), ומצד השלמת הכוונה דנתאוה הקב״ה (כדלקמן ס״ט). וראה לקמן הערה מד.

אבות פ״ב מי״ב.

משלי ג, ו. טושו״ע או״ח סרל״א.

ראה לקו״ש ח״ח ע׳ 108 ואילך. וש״נ.

להעיר מהמבואר בכ״מ (ד״ה מלכא ומלכתא תרצ״ז בסופו. וראה גם לקו״ת שה״ש מד, סע״ד) שיושבי אהל ובעלי עסקים הם דוגמת צדיקים ובעלי תשובה.

במכש״כ ממ״ש הרמב״ם (הל׳ גירושין ספ״ב) ענין זה אפילו כשאחרים כופין אותו.

רמב״ם שם.

ראה תניא רפ״ז.

ראה לקו״ש ח״כ ע׳ 334 ובהערות שם.

ויתירה מזו, "שבודאי סופו לעשות תשובה" (תניא ספל״ט. הל׳ ת״ת לאדה״ז פ״ד סוס״ג).

ראה לקו״ש ח״ה ע׳ 249 הערה 59 (ענין הא׳).

וענין זה יש גם בבע״ת בתשובה כפשוטה, אשר [נוסף על העילוי שמצד האדם, זה שגם לאחרי החטא הוא שב לה׳ (כנ״ל סעיף ז׳), הנה] ע״י שמהפך הזדונות לזכיות (יומא פו, ב) מתוסף בו גם עילוי הבא מצד "זכיות" אלו (לקו״ת אחרי כו, ג. דרמ״צ קצא, סע״א).

ולהעיר מד״ה פדה בשלום תש״ט פ״א, שהצדיקים עבודתם היא לעצמם וענין התשובה הוא "לפעול גם בדבר שחוץ להם". וזהו״ע העלי׳ דהנשמה ע״י ירידתה למטה, שהיא ״נעשית בבחי׳ בע״ת . . להאיר את העולם". אלא שמלשון זה משמע שהעילוי בתשובה שנעשה בהנשמה ע״י ירידתה למטה הוא (לא העלי׳ של הנשמה הבאה ע״י שמאירה את העולם, כ״א) הענין ד״להאיר את העולם" גופא. וראה לקמן ס״ט ובהערה מד.

ראה ד״ה תניא ז״ד תרצ״ז (סה״מ קונט׳ ח״ב שצד, א), דזה ש״נשמת האדם . . חפצה וחשקה בטבעה . . ולדבקה בשרשה ומקורה״ (תניא פי״ט) – אף שרצון זה אינו בשביל עצמה, שהרי כשתדבק בשרשה "תהי׳ אין ואפס ותתבטל שם במציאות לגמרי״ (תניא שם), מ״מ – מכיון שרצון זה הוא מצד טבעה, לכן ע״י רצון זה "אינו מתבטל מטבעו וכ״ש שאינו נאבד צורתו העצמי".

ושם (וראה עד״ז ד״ה וכל העם תרע״ח. ד״ה לריח שמניך תש״ו פ״ו), שע״י שנה״א פועלת הבירור דנה״ב עד שגם הנה״ב מתעוררת ברצוא לאלקות, מכיון שבנה״ב הרצוא לאלקות הוא היפך טבעה, הנה "זה פועל בהנפש האלקית דגם הוא מתבטל מטבעו". ושם (ע״ב) שעי״ז נעשה בה ה״יציאה מגדר הכלים והגבלה לגמרי".

ובדוגמת המבואר בד״ה לריח שמניך שם מעלת העלי׳ דנה״א שנעשה בה ע״י שפועלת בירור דנה״ב (שגם הנה״ב תתעורר ברצוא לאלקות) על העלי׳ שנעשה בה ע״י שמתגברת על נה״ב.

לקו״ת שלח לז, ד.

ראה לקו״ש חי״ב ע׳ 75 ובהערות שם.

ובדוגמת העלי׳ בנה״א שנעשה ע״י בירור נה״ב (ראה לעיל הערה לד).

אלא שגם העילוי שנעשה ע״י בירור נה״ב – מכיון שנה״ב יש לה שייכות לנה״א (ראה סה״מ קונטרסים ח״א רסו, סע״ב ואילך) – לכן, החידוש ובמילא גם העילוי שנעשה עי״ז אינו כהחידוש והעילוי שע״י בירור עניני העולם.

אבות ספ״ו.

משנה סוף קידושין.

לקו"ת ראה כח, ד.

פל״ז (מח, ב). וזה בא בהמשך להמבואר שם פל״ו שתכלית הבריאה הוא שיהי׳ לו (ית׳) דירה בתחתונים.

תנחומא נשא טז. תניא פל״ו.

ויש לומר, שעלי׳ זו דהנשמה מצד זה שמשלמת הכוונה ד״דירה בתחתונים" שבעצמותו ית׳ – מכיון שעצמותו ית׳ אין שייך לתארו גם בענין הבל״ג (ראה המשך תרס״ו ס״ע קסז. ובכ״מ), לכן גם השכר והעלי׳ שמצד השלמת כוונה זו הוא נעלה יותר מהעלי׳ דהנשמה שמצד גילוי אחדותו ית׳ הבלתי מוגבל דלעיל ס״ח.

ואפ״ל, שענינה של עלי׳ זו (שמצד הכוונה) בעבודת האדם הוא שיורגש בו ענין זה שכל מציאותו היא רק לכבודו ית׳, לשמש את קונו.

לקו"ת שם כט, א.

ראה בהמצויין בהערה כב. ולהעיר שגם בלקו"ת שם איתא ״הירידה . . היא בשביל עלי׳ כו'" (אלא שמסיים שם "שעכ״ז לא זה לבד הוא תכלית המכוון כו'").

ראה המשך תרס״ו ע׳ ג׳ (ושם ע׳ ח׳). ד״ה מצותה משתשקע תרע״ח – ע״פ תניא פל״ו.

ראה בארוכה ד״ה ולקחתם לכם תרס״א. וראה גם המשך תרס״ו ע׳ תלח.

ראה בארוכה לקו"ש חי״ב ע׳ 73 ואילך. חי״ד ע׳ 123.

ראה המשך תרס״ו שם: דענין העבודה בפועל דבחי׳ אין עוד הו"ע קבעומ״ש בחי׳ עבודת עבד.

שזהו העילוי שב״עבד פשוט" על "עבד נאמן" (המשך תרס״ו ע׳ שכו ואילך).

בפשטות אפ״ל, שהטעם "בשביל העלי׳" הוא בבחינת הגילויים* [וע״ד ב׳ הטעמים בסיבת הבריאה "בגין דישתמודעון לי׳" (זח״ב מב, ב) ו״יתגלו שלימות כוחותיו כו׳" (ע״ח בתחלתו. שער ההקדמות הקדמה ג׳) – ראה המשך תרס״ו ע׳ ד׳ ואילך. שם ע׳ תמו].

אבל יש לומר, שהטעם ״בשביל העלי׳״** שייך גם להכוונה האמיתית ד״דירה בתחתונים" שבעצמותו ית', כדלקמן בפנים.

*) וי״ל דאין סתירה לזה ממ״ש בלקו"ת בלק (עג, א) ״התירוץ האמיתי הוא . . היתרון שלהם בירידתן בגוף שנעשים בחינת בעלי תשובה״ – כי הענין ד״נתאוה כו׳ דירה בתחתונים" אינו בגדר "תירוץ״, מכיון שהענין ד״נתאוה" הוא למעלה מטו״ד "אויף אַ תאווה איז קיין קשיא" (המשך תרס״ו ס״ע ז׳ ואילך); וה״תירוץ״ (הטעם) על הירידה הוא – מה שנעשה "יתרון" ע״י הירידה, ובנוגע לזה אומר בלקו"ת שם ״יש על זה כמה תירוצים אך התירוץ האמיתי הוא . . שנעשים בחי׳ בעלי תשובה".

**) ועד״ז הוא גם בנוגע להטעמים דסיבת הבריאה שבזהר וע״ח – ראה לקו״ש ח״ו ע׳ 21 הערה 69.

שביטול זה הוא דוגמת הביטול דעבד פשוט, העבודה בפועל ד״אין עוד״. אבל למטה ממנו – ראה לעיל הערה מד.

ומ״ש בכ״מ שכוונת ירידת הנשמה היא בשביל העלי׳ – אף שענין זה מה שעבודתה היא בבחי׳ ביטול (שזהו עלייתה) היא (לכאורה) רק הכנה להשלמת הכוונה – יש לומר:

מכיון דזה מה שבכח העבודה לעשות דירה לו ית׳ הוא עי״ז שהיא בבחי׳ ביטול, הרי נמצא, שבאם העבודה היתה שלא בביטול – היתה ה״דירה" נעשית מצד הקב״ה ולא מצד (ובכח) עבודת האדם. ולכן: כמו שהעבודה (שהדירה תיעשה ע״י עבודת האדם) הו״ע בהכוונה ד״דירה בתחתונים" גופא (ולא רק הכנה אלי׳) – עד״ז הוא גם ענין הביטול שבהעבודה.

ראה גם כלי יקר פרשתנו כח, כ שבקשת יעקב "ושמרני גו׳" היא "על שמירת הנפש מן החטא".

ראה תניא ספ״ה (ובכ״מ) שהמצות הן לבושים והתורה היא (גם) מזון. אלי׳ רבה פכ״ז.

ראה גם תו״ח פרשתנו (כו, א־ב) ש״לחם ובגד" הו״ע תומ״צ, "ושבתי בשלום" הו"ע התשובה.

ויש לומר, שלכן נאמר "ושבתי" ולא ״והשבני״ (ראה לעיל בפנים ס״ג ובהערות שם) – כי מצד הירידה וההתלבשות בעניני העולם כו׳, הנתינת כח שמלמעלה היא בהעלם, וכאילו שההשבה היא מעצמו (וראה לקו״ש ח״ט ע׳ 64 הערה 26).

ועפ״ז יובן החידוש שב״ושבתי בשלום" על ״ושמרני״ – גם להפירוש (ראה לעיל הערה נה) ש״ושמרני״ קאי על שמירה מן החטא – כי ענין "ושמרני" מן החטא הוא באופן ד״תשש יצרו" (ראה לעיל בפנים ס״ו), שאז נרגש בו ששומרים אותו מלמעלה; והחידוש ב״ושבתי" הוא שגם כשעוסק בעניני הרשות מצד רצון נפשו הבהמית ("לבן") ואינו מרגיש את הנתינת כח שמלמעל׳, מ״מ "ושבתי בשלום – שלם מן החטא שלא אלמד מדרכי לבן".

רש״י פרשתנו כח, כא.

לשון הרמב״ן בה״פתיחה" לפירושו עה״ת בסופה.

ראה תניא (פ״מ בהגה״ה. אגה״ק סכ״ו. תו״א יז, רע״א) מכתבי האריז״ל דקבלה היא באצילות.

והגם ששלימות העלי׳ דנשמה הוא שהיא בבחי׳ ביטול בתכלית ועד שכל מציאותו הוא רק לשמש את קונו (ראה לעיל הערה 44) – מ״מ הוא מרגיש עילוי בזה גופא שהוא בטל כו'.

ובדוגמת ה״עבד נאמן" שעבודתו היא "מצד הרגש העילוי וההפלאה שבאוא״ס" (המשך תרס״ו ע׳ שכג), אשר עם היותו עבד "רק בשביל להשלים רצונו ית׳ . . ואין כוונתו לעצמו כלל" (המשך שם), מ״מ היא חפץ שהשלמת רצון האדון תהי׳ על ידו (המשך הנ״ל ריש ע׳ שכא).

גם לא העילוי דביטול (ראה הערה הקודמת).