Beshalach: The Unity a Leader Forges

Sotah 30b.

Taamei HaMitzvos, Parshas Kedoshim.

Sotah 30b. The Mishnah (ibid. 27b) mentions only the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Nechemiah. See the different versions of this passage and the differing opinions in the Tosefta (Sotah 6:2), Talmud Yerushalmi (Sotah 5:4); Mechilta and Yalkut Shimoni on Shmos 15:1, et al. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

See Sukkah 38b.

Tehillim 113:1, the first word of Hallel.

Rashi, Sotah, loc. cit. See Rashi, Sukkah, loc. cit., who explains how the members of a congregation fulfill their obligation by listening to the recitation by another person who is similarly obligated. Rashi also explains the difference between the recitation of Hallel in the Talmudic era and the current custom.

Shmos 15:1.

A minor is not obligated in the observance of the mitzvos. Accordingly, adults who are so obligated cannot fulfill their obligation by listening to the minor’s recitation.

See Rashi, Sotah, loc. cit., who explains why Rabbi Nechemiah mentions “a teacher.”

Rashi, Sotah, loc. cit. The Tosefta, loc. cit. (quoted by Tosafos, Sotah, loc. cit. s.v. Rabbi Nechmiah) interprets Rabbi Nechemiah’s opinion differently. See the sources mentioned in footnote 1 and Maharsha’s Chiddushei Aggados, Sotah, loc. cit., et al. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

Mechilta, loc. cit., explicitly interprets Rabbi Nechemiah’s opinion concerning this manner. See footnote 13.

See the understanding of the above verse in Shmos Rabbah 23:9. See also the teaching of the Mechilta cited at the end of the sec. 2.

I.e., they responded with that phrase to every bar of the song (Rashi).

I.e., the Jews repeated every phrase of the song after Moshe.

See Rashi, Sotah, loc. cit. See footnote 17, below.

See the interpretation of the above verse in the Mechilta, which explainsthat it is only according to Rabbi Nechemiah’s opinion that “the Spirit of Holiness rested upon the Jewish people,” and not according to the opinion of the other Sages.* (See also Maharsha’s Chiddushei Aggados, Sotah, loc. cit.)

According to this logic, it would appear that one is forced to say that these Sages also differ regarding the teaching (Sotah, loc. cit., see the main text) that nurslings and babies also joined in the recitation of the song. Nevertheless, the Talmud (Berachos 50a) explicitly states that Rabbi Akiva accepts* the teaching of Rabbi Meir who maintains that the babies also joined in the song, and that source seems to imply that all the Sages accept that concept. See Zohar, Vol. II, p. 60a, which states that “the Spirit of Holiness was invested in everyone’s mouth and even babies in their mothers’ womb recited the song.” See also footnote 30, below.

* See the Horowitz printing of the Mechilta, which includes the wording “the Spirit of Holiness was invested…” in Rabbi Akiva’s statement as well.

Note Talmud Yerushalmi, Sotah, loc. cit., which questions, “What is the intent of the word laimor?” and answers:“To the future generations.” Since, as Korban HaEidah explains, according to Talmud Yerushalmi, “they all recited the song on their own initiative as Moshe did,” the meaning of the word laimor requires explanation. In resolution, Talmud Yerushalmi explains that the intent was to relate the song to their descendants in the coming generations.

By contrast, the Talmud Bavli understands Rabbi Nechemiah as interpreting laimor as meaning that Moshe was the initiator. See also the beginning of the Targum to Shir HaShirim, which states, “Moshe and the Children of Israel… all began and recited the song in unison.”

See also the rendering of the teaching in the Tosefta, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Mechilta loc. cit.

Sotah30b-31a.

On a straightforward level, it is possible to say that the people waited for Moshe to begin as an expression of deference. See Rashi, Sotah, loc. cit. s.v. laimor, who states that laimor indicates that “they were all authorized to recite the song… after the sage [i.e., Moshe] began.” Nevertheless, this is a seemingly insufficient explanation, for it is unnecessary for Scripture to add a word to emphasize this point. (It would appear that it is difficult to say that Scripture’s intent in adding the word laimor is merely to teach this point – that it is necessary to wait for a sage to begin.)

See Rashi, Shmos 19:2, who states that the Jews camped before Mt. Sinai, “as one man, with one heart.” See footnote 66 below.

When using the term “head” to refer to the leader of a group or people, Chassidus understands the analogy as applying in a full sense. The head a) is the most elevated and refined of all the body’s limbs and organs, b) contains the life-energy for all the limbs and organs of the body, subsequently diffusing this energy to each limb and organ according to its particular function, and c) directs the function of all the limbs and organs. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1144ff.

Ideally, parallels to these three dimensions exist in a Jewish leader’s relationship to his people. See Tanya, chs. 2 and 51.

As intimated in the main text below, the word nasi literally means “the upraised one,” and is used in the Tanach to refer to a leader, prince, or king of a tribe or a people. In the Talmudic era, the same term was used to refer to the head of the Sanhedrin, Israel’s highest court.

Just as the brain includes the vitality for all limbs and organs of the body, the “head” of the Jewish people includes the entire people. Nevertheless, the way in which the vitality for the body’s limbs and organs exists in the brain is of an entirely different nature than the way it exists within the limbs and organs themselves. See footnote 25, below.

Bamidbar 21:21.

The concept that a nasi brings about unity within the Jewish people as a whole is reflected in Torah Law. Thus, Maggid Mishneh (Hilchos Taanios 3:11, citing Ramban), explains our Sages’ statement (Taanis 12b):“There is no concept of the Jewish people as a tzibbur (a collective entity) in Bavel,” as a consequence of there not being a nasi in Bavel, for it is the nasi who raises the Jews above their individual identities and unites them as a collective. In a similar vein, Rashba writes in one of his responsa (Vol. 1, responsum 148); “The king is considered as the tzibbur, because the tzibbur is dependent on him.”

This concept and those mentioned later in the sichah receive further emphasis in Chassidus and are outlined in Tanya, ch. 2, et al. The concept is sourced in the principle that the souls of the Jewish people as a collective arose in G‑d’s thought before – i.e., not only chronologically, but in terms of spiritual levels – anything else existed. As the different levels of the Spiritual Cosmos – Seder Hahishtalshelus, the progressive chainlike hierarchy of existence – came into being, the souls filtered down through these different planes of being, taking on particular characteristics, in that way distinguishing one soul from another.

In Tanya, loc. cit., the Alter Rebbe explains this concept with the metaphor of the process of gestation. Just as the human body is a complex organism, with many different limbs and organs evolving from one drop of sperm, so too, as the souls descend through the hierarchy of spiritual worlds, they differentiate one from another, each one taking on its own individual identity.

In Tanya and Likkutei Sichos, loc. cit., the simile is developed further, explaining that:

a) In the human body, the brain serves as a unifying force, endowing all the different cells of the body with a collective identity, causing them to function as elements of a single organism.

b) even after a child is born, its brain retains a unique connection to its source, the brain of its father, bonding the identity of one with the other. See the Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh, Vol. 2, Letter no. 331.

Parallels to these concepts exist within the Jewish people: The “heads of the people,” the Torah scholars of the generation, and, more particularly, the nasi, serve as the “brain” of the people as a whole, endowing them with a collective identity, and empowering them to function synergistically. As such, they connect the people as a whole with their G‑dly source. See sec. 6 of this sichah and the footnotes there, where the concepts explained here are further developed.

I Shmuel 9:2; see also ibid. 10:23. See the interpretation of this phrase in Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 4, p. 764b, Shir HaShirim, Vol. 2, p. 414ff., et al., which expands the meaning of the verse beyond its literal sense. Literally, the verse’s intent is that Shaul was a giant, taller than all others. These sources explained that his spiritual stature also towered over that of the entire nation.

To build on the analogy explained in footnote 23: The brain contains a “map of the body,” cells that relate to every limb and organ of the body. Hence, it can be said that the entire body is included in the brain. Nevertheless, the cells within the brain that relate to the other limbs and organs are brain cells. Their connection to the other limbs and organs is only a potential. See Derech Mitzvosecha, p. 28b.

Similarly, although the soul of the nasi contains within it the souls of all the members of the Jewish people, as their souls exist within the soul of the nasi, they transcend their own particular identities and are subsumed with the nasi’s collective consciousness. Hence, they are utterly at one with each other. See sec. 5 below.

The piyyut entitled Vechol Maaminin.The words of this liturgical hymn have been translated according to the context in which the phrase is employed in the sichah here.

See the commentary of Sifsei Kohen on the Torah, Shmos 15:1, which states that the entire Jewish people’s recitation was aligned with that of Moshe “because they are all included within him…. Their souls are sparks of his soul.” See also Maamarei Admur HaZakein, 5566, p. 150; Toras Chayim, Shmos, Vol. 1, p. 161c in the most recent printing. Accordingly, Moshe lifts the people above their individual levels, sharing his consciousness with them.

See the second opinion in the Mechilta, loc. cit., that states only, “Moshe’s recitation of the song was equivalent to that of all of Israel.”

See also the interpretation of Mirkeves HaMishneh to the Mechilta, loc. cit., which states that the Spirit of Holiness flowed equally to Moshe and the entire people.

Based on the explanations in the main text, it is possible to say that all the Sages agree that the Jewish people recited the song with the Spirit of Holiness. This concept is explicitly stated in the interpretation of the phrase (Shmos 14:31) in Shmos Rabbah, 22:3, 23:2, without it being attributed to a given Sage. (By contrast, the Mechilta, loc. cit., attributes this statement to Rabbi Nechemiah. See also the Zohar, loc. cit., and Alshich and Sifsei Kohen to this verse.)

The reason the Jewish people repeated only after Moshe is because they became batel to and united with Moshe, as explained above.

As explained above, the consummate unity of the Jews with Moshe produced consummate unity among themselves as well.

See the explanation in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 23, p. 233, regarding a congregation participating in the recitation of Hallel by responding Halleluyah. Consult that source, which explains that by fulfilling their obligation by responding to the reader (sheliach tzibbur),the congregation reaches a state of complete unity.

According to Rabbi Eliezer, although the Jews can be elevated to Moshe’s level, this ascent is dependent on and achieved through their response to Moshe’s words.

It can be said that Rabbi Akiva maintains that the recitation of the entire song by the Jewish people would reduce the degree of unity achieved by being included in Moshe’s singular recitation, i.e., according to Rabbi Akiva, were they to join in reciting the song, they would be functioning on their own individual levels and they would lack the absolute unity that exists on Moshe’s level.

Rabbi Eliezer maintains that it is possible for this oneness to be revealed within the existence (and the recitation) by the Jewish people as they function on their own level. However, this is possible only when they feel their unity comes as a response to Moshe’s recitation of the song.

Rabbi Nechemiah maintains that since “Moshe is Israel and Israel is Moshe,” it is also possible that, as the entire people recited the song together, they could experience absolute unity with Moshe’s song to the point that they could sing together with him. See footnote 69 below which explains similar concepts using classic chassidic terminology.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1141ff., Vol. 18, p. 207ff., Toras Menachem 5744, Vol.2, p. 663ff., et al.

Vayikra 19:18.

Ch. 32.

See Radbaz, Hilchos Mamrim 2:4, which uses terminology similar to that employed in Tanya, loc. cit.

Although relatives and people who resemble one another are sometimes referred to as “brothers” (see Bereishis 13:8 and Rashi’s commentary there), the bond shared with one’s actual brothers is far deeper. Therefore, the Alter Rebbe adds the adjective mamash, translated as “actual.”

Regarding the description of the Jews as brothers, see Rambam, Hilchos Matanos Aniyim 10:2.

See Talmud Yerushalmi, Nedarim 9:4.

This phrase is taken from the commentary of Korban HaEidah, Talmud Yerushalmi, loc. cit. Similar statements are found in Radbaz, loc. cit., the commentary of Abarbanel to Yehoshua, 7:2, et al. See Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 22 (based on Shoftim 20:11) and Epistle 31. See the elaboration regarding this concept by the Tzemach Tzedek in Derech Mitzvosecha (mitzvas ahavas Yisrael).

Bereishis 29:14. Atzmi, translated as “my bone,” could also be rendered “my essence.”

Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 44a, et al. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 30, p. 218–219, where this concept is explained in detail.

See the maamar entitled Eleh Toldos, 5672 (Sefer HaMaamarim 5672–5676, p. 50), which states that “because of the source of their souls in the one G‑d, even as they are drawn down [into this world,] they are identical.” Consult that source. A similar point is reflected in the wording of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe – whose yahrzeit is commemorated on Yud Shvat which always falls in proximity to Parshas Beshalach– cited in footnote 47.

In Tanya, loc. cit., the Alter Rebbe continues “and also to draw down G‑d’s infinite light… in the source of the souls of all of Israel.” Note also the wording used previously in that chapter in Tanya, “and the soul and the spirit, who can fathom their greatness and level in their source and root….”

See Tanya. ch. 2, which explains that the Jewish souls as a collective are like a son that is drawn down from the brain of his father. Consult that source. See footnote 23 above.

“The one G‑d” represents a superior level of oneness to that implied by sharing “one Father,” which can be interpreted as referring to the attribute of chochmah, which is the source of distinction and division.

It is possible to say that this is alluded to in the wording of Tanya, loc. cit., “they are all identical.” See Sefer HaMaamarim 5669 (p. 73), which states that “they are all identical, i.e., in their essential being,” the essence that transcends revelation. Consult that text.

See also the letter of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe (published in the beginning of Kovetz Michtavim LeTehillim; the Igros Kodesh of the Rebbe Rayatz, Vol. 2, p. 524): [“The Jewish souls love each other because they are actually one due to their essential G‑dliness that is rooted in G‑d’s Essence that includes them. This explanation enables one to understand the statement that… the souls are identical.”]

Tanya, at the beginning of ch. 2, employing the wording of Iyov 31:2, except that it adds the word mamash, “actually.” See the introduction to Shefa Tal, where this concept is explained at length.

See Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 1:7. See also ibid. 2:10.

The end of Tanya, ch. 2.

Devarim 11:22. See Sifri and Rashi to that verse; Kesubos 111b; Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvos, positive commandment 6, Hilchos Deos 6:2; the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch 156:4. See Mechilta, Beshalach, to Shmos 14:31, “They believed in G‑d”: “All those who believe in a faithful shepherd are considered as if they believe in the One Who spoke and [brought] the world into being.”

To refer back to the analogy explained in footnote 23. The brain a) does not function only as an individual organ, but rather subsumes its identity to the body as a whole, and b) shares an essential connection to the brain of the father. Similarly, “the heads of the Children of Israel in their generation,” the Torah leaders of our people, function in a manner similar to the brain. They a) are not concerned solely with their own selves – even their spiritual prowess – but subsume their identity to the people as a collective, and b) share an essential bond with G‑d. Moreover, just as the brain endows life-force to the body as a whole, these Torah leaders elevate the entire people to such a bond with G‑d. (See Toras Menachem 5744. Vol. 4, pp. 2551–2552.)

See Tikkunei Zohar, tikkun 69, that speaks of “the extension of Moshe in every generation.”

See Sefer Yetzirah 6:2, which states, “Within the soul, the heart is like a king at war.” See Rab­beinu Bachya, Hakdamah LeParshas Beshalach; Abarbanel, Parshas Shoftim, parshas hamelech (citing the philosophers), et al.

Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 3:6.

To put it simply, Rambam is not stating that the king is “the heart of the entire congregation of Israel,” merely that “his heart is the heart of the entire congregation of Israel.” Accordingly, “the Torah is concerned with the [possibility] of [the king’s] heart [being] diverted.” Nevertheless, from the fact that the Torah is concerned primarily about the king’s heart – because “his heart is the heart of the entire congregation of Israel” – it can be understood that the primary relationship of the people to the king centers on his being its heart.

See Tanya, ch. 51.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 19, p. 165ff., where another explanation is offered.

Devarim 12:23, et al.

See Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 13a.

The concepts in the main text can be understood in terms of the contrast discussed in many sources in Chassidus (Or HaTorah, Bamidbar, Vol. 3, p. 759:6ff.; Sefer HaMaamarim 5708, p. 6ff.; et al.) between the chayus klalli (general life-energy) drawn down to the body as a whole and the chayus p’rati (particular life-energy) drawn down to each limb or organ individually.

The chayus klalli endows the person with life and vitality; he feels alive. He cannot define what it means to live, but he feels an all-encompassing sense of energy. Chayus p’rati is more individual in nature, relating to the unique qualities and potentials that distinguish each limb or organ and its functions and capacities.

The source for both the chayus klalli and the chayus p’rati rest within the brain. This is implied by the wording in the main text “the primary aspect of the life-energy drawn down... from the brain.” Although the life-energy that vitalizes the body as a whole also rests in the brain, the primary aspect of the brain’s functioning relates to the vitality granted to each limb and organ individually.

This parallels the dimension of the king that relates to the brain. See Derech Mitzvosecha, mitzvas minui melech, which explains these two dimensions of the functioning of a king.

On this basis, it is possible to understand the license given a king to execute those who rebel against him (Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 3:8.), including even one who makes merely an inappropriate gesture in the presence of a king (Chagigah 5b). See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1050ff., and Vol. 8, p. 25, et al., that explain that, since the vitality of every member of the kingdom is dependent on the king, by rebelling against him a person cuts himself off from the source of his life-energy.

Because the king inspires in his people a commitment to the collective, the members of the nation are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country and for their king and, similarly, the king is willing to sacrifice his life for the sake of his people. See Basi LeGani, 5710, sec. 11.]

Tanya, ch. 2, p. 6b, borrowing the wording of Bamidbar 1:16.

Tanya, loc. cit.

See the explanation in several sources – the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 1, sec. 35; see Torah Or, pp. 97d ff., 121dff.; the maamar entitled VeKibeil, Shaarei Orah, sec. 16ff., et al. – that the soul’s dimension of yechidah rests specifically in the heart.

See the maamar entitled VeAtah Tetzaveh, sec. 6, translated in Lessons in Sefer HaMaamarim, p. 362ff.

It is possible to say that this is the intent in the two phrases employed by Rashi, Shmos 19:2, when describing the unity of the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, “as one man, with one heart.” “As one man” implies that although they are united, there are still distinctions between them, like the body that has distinct limbs and organs. “With one heart” highlights the absolute oneness stemming from the fundamental spark of life that transcends all distinctions.

To employ the lexicon of Chassidus, the nasi of the generation represents the yechidah of the generation as a whole and his mission is to reveal the yechidah of every member of the generation. See the Mitteler Rebbe’s Shaarei Teshuvah, ch. 12, and the maamar entitled VeAtah Tetzaveh, loc. cit.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 30, pp. 219–220, which explains the unity a king engenders within his people.

It is possible to say that the three Sages’ interpretations of the manner in which the song was recited reflect three manners in which the essential Jewish spark possessed by every Jew becomes manifest, as explained in other sources (see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 8, p. 5ff., et al.):

a) The Jewish spark becomes manifest as a unique, distinct entity, transcending intellect, for example, as reflected in the willingness of ordinary people and even sinners to sacrifice their lives in sanctification of G‑d’s name. However, although such people sanctify G‑d’s name, doing so does not necessarily bring about a metamorphosis within their own being. Their mindset remains that of a sinner. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva maintains that the Jews only answered Moshe. They could do no more because they could not internalize the influence stemming from their essential Jewish spark.

b) It becomes manifest in a manner that affects each person’s thinking processes; his fundamental outlook becomes aligned with his essential Jewish spark rather than ordinary mortal logic. However, it is apparent that his change in outlook is sourced in his fundamental Jewish spark rather than his own ordinary thinking process. Alone, he would not think that way. He is like a student quoting a teacher; the student understands and identifies with what his teacher taught him, but the thoughts are his teacher’s not his own. In a like vein, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the Jews could only recite the song in response to Moshe.

c) The Jewish spark permeates the person’s entire being and makeup to the extent that his own understanding reacts to a situation as his essential Jewish spark would mandate, like a student whose mind has been molded by his teacher to the extent that he solves problems that his teacher never discussed according to the principles imbued in him. This level is reflected in Rabbi Nechemiah’s understanding that once Moshe initiated the song, all Israel recited it as one.

See also Maamarei Admur HaEmtza’i, Vayikra, Vol. 1, p. 330, which explains that the song emanated from the level of yechidah that exists equally within every Jew, even a baby in its mother’s womb.

See the elaborate explanation in the series of maamarim entitled Samach Tisamach, Sefer HaMaamarim 5657, p. 223ff.

Torah Or, p. 62b; see the abovementioned series of maamarim, p. 173ff.

Shmos 15:2.

Rashi to the above-cited verse.

See Mechilta, Parshas Shirah, et al.

Yirmeyahu 31:7.

ברייתא סוטה ל, ב (ובמשנה שם כז, ב הובאו רק דעת רבי עקיבא ודעת רבי נחמיה).

וראה (הגירסאות והדיעות) תוספתא שם פ״ו, ב. ירושלמי שם פ״ה ה״ד. מכילתא וילקוט שמעוני פרשתנו על הפסוק (טו, א). ועוד. ואין כאן מקומו.

ראה סוכה לח, ב.

כן הוא בפירוש רש״י. וראה רש״י סוכה שם.

פרשתנו טו, א.

כן הוא בפירוש רש״י. ובתוספתא הנ״ל (הובא בתוספות ד״ה ר״נ שם) פירש דעת רבי נחמיה באופן אחר. וראה הנסמן בהערה א. חדושי אגדות מהרש״א סוטה שם. ועוד. ואין כאן מקומו.

כן מפורש במכילתא פרשתנו שם בדעת רבי נחמיה. וראה הערה ח.

ראה שמות רבה על הפסוק (פכ״ג, ט בסופו). וראה לקמן סעיף ב דרשת המכילתא.

וראה גם מכילתא פרשתנו על הפסוק, שרק בדעת רבי נחמיה נזכר ש"שרתה רוח הקודש על ישראל", מה שאין כן בשאר הדעות* (וראה חדושי אגדות מהרש״א סוטה שם). אבל על פי זה צריך לומר לכאורה דפליגי על הדרשה שגם העוללים כו׳ ועוברים אמרו שירה (כדלקמן בפנים), ובגמרא ברכות (נ, א) מפורש שרבי עקיבא סבירא ליה* כרבי מאיר שגם העוברים אמרו שירה, ומשמע שם שכן הוא לכולי עלמא (וראה זהר פרשתנו ס, א). – וראה הערה כ.

*) ולהעיר שבמכילתא הוצאת האראוויץ שם הועתק הלשון "שרתה רוח הקודש כו׳" גם בדעת רבי עקיבא.

ולהעיר מירושלמי סוטה שם "מה תלמוד לומר לאמר (ש"הרי כולם אמרו שירה מעצמם כמשה", קרבן העדה), לאמר לדורות" – דלא כבבבלי שמפרש (לדעת רבי נחמיה) "לאמר דפתח משה ברישא". וראה תרגום לשיר השירים בתחלתו: משה עם בנוי דישראל . . פתחו כולהון ואמרו כחדא שירתא.

וראה גם תוספתא וירושלמי (ומכילתא) שם.

ל, סע״ב ואילך.

בפשטות יש לומר שזהו ענין של דרך ארץ, שחיכו למשה שיפתח (ראה רש״י סוטה שם ד״ה לאמר ״אחר שנרשו לאמר . . אחר שפתח חכם"). אבל לכאורה אינו ביאור מספיק, כי בשביל זה לא היה צריך הכתוב להדגיש זאת (ולכאורה דוחק לומר דהא גופא קמשמע לן הכתוב, שצריכים לחכות לפתיחת החכם).

להעיר מרש״י יתרו (יט, ב) "כאיש אחד בלב אחד". וראה לקמן הערה נא.

חקת כא, כא.

שמואל-א ט, ב (וראה שם י, כג). וראה אור התורה וירא (כרך ד) תשסד, ב. שיר השירים (כרך ב) ע׳ תיד ואילך. ועוד.

לשון הפיוט "האוחז ביד".

ראה גם ש״ך על התורה כאן "כיוונו למה שאמר משה כי כולם נכללים בו . . שנשמותיהם הם ניצוצות נשמתו". ולהעיר ממאמרי אדמו״ר הזקן תקס״ו ע׳ קנ. תורת חיים פרשתנו רכו, א-ב.

ראה דיעה הב׳ במכילתא שם "שאמר משה שירה כנגד כל ישראל".

ראה גם פירוש מרכבת המשנה על המכילתא שם.

על פי המבואר בפנים יש לומר, שלכל הדעות אמרו ישראל השירה ברוח הקודש [וכן הובא בסתם בשמות רבה (פכ״ב, ג. פכ״ג, ב) על הפסוק ויאמינו בה׳ (אבל במכילתא על הפסוק הוא מאמר רבי נחמיה). וראה זהר פרשתנו שם. אלשיך וש״ך על התורה כאן] – ומה שענו אחרי משה הוא מפני ביטולם והתאחדותם עם משה, כבפנים.

להעיר ממה שנתבאר במקום אחר (לקוטי שיחות חכ״ג ע׳ 233) לענין אמירת הלל (על ידי עניית הללוי'), עיין שם.

ויש לומר שרבי עקיבא סבירא ליה שאמירת כל השירה על ידי כל ישראל (בפני עצמם) ממעטת מדרגת האחדות שעל ידי אמירה אחת דמשה; ורבי אליעׅזר סבירא ליה שאפשר לאחדות זו להתגלות במציאות (ואמירת) בני ישראל, אבל רק כשנרגש שהיא באה בדרך "מענה" לשירת משה; ורבי נחמיה סבירא ליה דכיון ש"משה הוא ישראל וישראל הם משה", לכן גם באמירתם "כולן יחד" נרגשת אחדות מוחלטת עם שירת משה. וראה לקמן הערה נד (בלשון החסידות).

קדושים יט, יח.

פרק לב.

ראה גם רדב״ז להלכות ממרים פ״ב ה״ד.

ראה רמב״ם הלכות מתנות עניים פ״י ה״ב.

ולא רק "קרובים" או "דומין" (כבפרשת לך יג, ח ובפירוש רש״י).

נדרים פ״ט ה״ד.

לשון הקרבן העדה שם. ועל דרך זה הוא ברדב״ז הנ״ל. אברבנאל יהושע "פרשה שביעית". ועוד. וראה תניא אגרת הקדש סוף סימן כב (על פי ספר שופטים כ, יא). שם סימן ל״א. ובארוכה – ספר המצוות להצמח צדק מצות אהבת ישראל.

ויצא כט, יד.

לקוטי תורה ריש פרשת נצבים. ובכמה מקומות. – וראה בפרטיות לקוטי שיחות חלק ל ע׳ 218-19.

ראה ד״ה אלה תולדות תער״ב (ספר המאמרים תער״ב-ע״ו ע׳ נ) “דמצד שורש נפשם בה׳ אחד גם בהמשכתם מתאימות הנה”. עיין שם. וכן משמע מלשון כ״ק מו״ח אדמו״ר – בעל ההילולא דיו״ד שבט – דלקמן הערה לה.

וממשיך “וגם להמשיך אור אין סוף . . במקור נשמות כל ישראל”. ולהעיר ממה שכתוב לפני זה “והנפש והרוח מי יודע גדולתן ומעלתן בשרשן ומקורן כו’ ”.

ראה תניא פ״ב שהוא כמו בן הנמשך ממוח האב. עיין שם.

ולא רק ״אב אחד״ – בחינת חכמה, שהוא מקור להתחלקות. ויש לומר שנרמז בלשון התניא שם “שכולן מתאימות״ – ראה ספר המאמרים תרס״ט (ע׳ עג) “שמתאימות המה דהיינו בעצם מהותם”, העצם שלמעלה מגילויים. עיין שם. וראה מכתב כ״ק מו״ח אדמו״ר (קובץ מכתבים לתהלים בתחלתו. אגרות קודש שלו כרך ב׳ ע׳ תקכד): “הנפשות אוהבים זה את זה להיותם אחד ממש מצד העצם דאלקות שהוא העצמות ברוך הוא הכוללם וזה הבנת מאמר . . דהנפשות מתאימות”.

לשון התניא ריש פרק ב (על פי לשון הכתוב איוב (לא, ב), אלא שמוסיף תיבת “ממש”). וראה בארוכה שפע טל בהקדמה.

ראה רמב״ם הלכות יסודי התורה פ״א ה״ז. שם פ״ב ה״י.

תניא סוף פרק ב.

עקב יא, כב. ספרי ורש״י על הפסוק. כתובות קיא, ב. ספר המצוות להרמב״ם מצות עשה ו. הלכות דעות פ״ו ה״ב. שו״ע אדה״ז או״ח שם ס״ד. – ולהעיר ממכילתא פרשתנו על הפסוק ויאמינו בה׳, “שכל המאמין ברועה נאמן כאילו מאמין במי שאמר והי׳ העולם”.

לשון התניא שם (ו, סע״ב).

ראה ספר יצירה (פ״ו מ״ב) “לב בנפש כמלך במלחמה”. בחיי ריש פרשתנו. אברבנאל פ׳ שופטים בפרשת המלך (בשם הפלוסופים). ועוד.

הלכות מלכים פ״ג ה״ו.

בפשטות אין כוונת הרמב״ם לדמות המלך ללב כל קהל ישראל, אלא “שלבו הוא לב כל קהל ישראל”, שלכן “על הסרת לבו (דמלך) הקפידה תורה”. אבל מזה ש”הקפידה תורה” בעיקר בנוגע ללבו של מלך (משום ש”לבו הוא לב כל קהל ישראל”), מובן, שעיקר שייכות המלך לכל קהל ישראל הוא בענין הלב.

תניא פנ״א.

ראה (באופן אחר) לקוטי שיחות חי״ט ע׳ 165 ואילך.

פ׳ ראה יב, כג. ועוד.

ראה לקוטי תורה במדבר יג, א.

שלכן המורד במלך יש למלך רשות להרגו (רמב״ם הלכות מלכים שם ה״ח), כולל גם מאן דמחוי במחוג קמי מלכא (חגיגה ה, ב). – וראה לקוטי שיחות ח״ד ע׳ 1050 ואילך. ח״ח ע׳ 25. ועוד.

תניא פ״ב (ו, ריש ע״ב).

להעיר מהמבואר בכמה מקומות שיחידה שבנפש שורה בלב דוקא (ראה המשך תער״ב ח״א פל״ה. וראה תורה אור מגלת אסתר צד, סע״ד ואילך. שערי אורה ד״ה וקבל פט״ז ואילך. ועוד).

ראה לעיל הערה לה.

ויש לומר שזהו פירוש ב׳ הלשונות “כאיש אחד בלב אחד” (ראה לעיל הערה יג) – “כאיש אחד”, שעדיין יש בו התחלקות האברים, ראש ורגל כו’; ״בלב אחד״ – נקודת החיות שלמעלה מהתחלקות.

בלשון החסידות – שנשיא הדור הוא ה”יחידה” הכללית של כל הדור, המגלה את ה”יחידה” שבכל אחד ואחד מאנשי הדור.

ולהעיר גם מלקוטי שיחות חלק ל ע׳ 219-20 – לענין האחדות הנעשית על ידי מלך.

ויש לומר, שג׳ האופנים (דיעות) באופן אמירת שירה הם על דרך ג׳ האופנים שישנם בגילוי נקודת היהדות (כמו שנתבאר במקום אחר); א) גילוי נקודת היהדות בפני עצמה (שלמעלה מהשכל). ב) הגילוי הוא באופן שפועל על השכל, שה”הנחות” שבשכלו הם בהתאם לנקודת היהדות, אבל נרגש שמקורן (אינו בשכל מצד עצמו, אלא) בנקודת היהדות. ג) נקודת היהדות חודרת בכל מהותו ומציאותו, שאז השכל מצד עצמו מבין כפי המחוייב מצד נקודת היהדות (ראה לקוטי שיחות ח״ח ע׳ 5 ואילך. ועוד).

ראה גם מאמרי אדמו״ר האמצעי ויקרא ע׳ של.

ראה בארוכה המשך שמח תשמח (בסה״מ) תרנ״ז (ע’ רכג ואילך).

תורה אור פרשתנו סב, א. וראה בארוכה המשך הנ״ל בתחילתו (ע׳ קעג ואילך).

טו, ב וברש״י שם.

מכילתא פרשתנו כאן. ועוד.

ירמי׳ לא, ז.