Maasei: Led by a Unique Divine Intent

Our translation of the blessing is based on Metzudas Tziyon and Malbim on Tehillim 37:23.

Shmos 13:21.

Degel Machaneh Efraim, Parshas Maasei.

See Likkutei Torah, Parshas Bamidbar; Toras Chayim, Shmos, p. 137b; et al.

Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Maasei, sec. 3. Bamidbar Rabbah 23:3.

Rashi, Bamidbar 33:1, in his second interpretation. See footnote 5 below.

Rabbeinu Bachya, Bamidbar 33:2, uses slightly different wording, “Here, we sat.” This wording is also found in the first and second printings of Rashi’s commentary and in some manuscript versions. See footnote 74 below.

Hukarnu, the term used by the Midrash could be translated as both “cooled off” and “were cold.” In different places throughout the sichah, the Rebbe employs nuances suggesting both of the translations.

When quoting Midrash Tanchuma, Rashi does not include this concluding paragraph, but rather writes vechulai (“etc.”). This omission can be explained simply: According to the straightforward meaning of the verse, we cannot possibly say that the Torah mentions “all” 42 journeys as “places where they angered Me,” because the list includes places where the Jews did not anger G‑d.*

Note Rashi’s words at the beginning of Parshas Devarim, “[Moshe] lists here all the places where [the Jewish people] evoked [G‑d’s] anger,” mentioning far fewer than 42 places. Moreover, from a straightforward reading of the verses, there was no distinct event – neither positive nor negative – that occurred during a number of journeys cited in the Torah. (Note, however, Devarim 9:7, 24 and Rashi, Shmos 19:2, which imply that the Jews exhibited undesirable conduct throughout all their journeys.)

Rashi brings the interpretation of Midrash Tanchuma as a second interpretation because there is a difficulty regarding the first explanation he offers,** that of Rav Moshe HaDarshan, who states that these journeys were cited “to make known the kindnesses of the Omnipresent… that [throughout] all the 38 years, the [Jews] only made 20 journeys other than the journeys that were essential for the passage through the desert to Eretz Yisrael. If that were the reason for listing all the journeys, seemingly the Torah should only have mentioned these 20 journeys.*** For this reason, Rashi cites the analogy from Midrash Tanchuma.

The interpretation of Midrash Tanchuma explains why the Torah recounts the journeys that preceded sending the spies and those that followed the death of Miriam, for most of them were already mentioned in the Torah and a specific event that occurred there is described. This fits the analogy, “Here, we slept… cooled off…, you had a headache,” which alludes to the fact that various events transpired there but these events did not necessarily anger G‑d. See the supracommentaries of Rav of Ovadiah of Bartenura, Gur Aryeh (cited in the following footnote), Devek Tov, et al. Note the comments of Lekach Tov here.

However, according to this interpretation, there is also a difficulty: Why were the journeys between the sending of the spies until the death of Miriam – which were not mentioned in the Torah beforehand at all – mentioned here? This question is resolved by the interpretation of Rav Moshe HaDarshan.

* Regarding the explanation of the Midrash according to the inner, mystical dimension of the concepts involved, see sec. 5 in the main text below, which explains how these journeys relate to angering G‑d.

** One of the Rebbe’s frequently cited premises regarding Rashi’s commentary is that when Rashi brings two interpretations, neither one is entirely satisfactory. Each involves a logical difficulty for which the other compensates. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 204, et al.

*** Ramban comments on this verse, “Throughout this long period of time, they only made 42 journeys.” However, the wording Rashi uses implies that G‑d’s kindness was that “[throughout] all the 38 years, the [Jews] only made 20 journeys.”

Gur Aryeh comments, “At times, the Jewish people were in a state of comfort and tranquility. This is [intimated by] ‘here, we slept.’ At times, when they were lacking something, they were in an aggrieved state. This is [intimated by] ‘here, we were cold.’ At times, they were in danger. This resembles a person who is ill, who suffers from a headache.”

Nevertheless, it is understood that since this is an analogy employed by the Midrash, it is necessary to say that particular implications of these three examples – “we slept … we were cold … you had a headache” – and their effects (sleep, coldness and headache) are each individually relevant in the analogue regarding the Jews’ relationship with G‑d. Therefore, further explanation is required.

See the comment of Gur Aryeh cited in the previous footnote.

See Etz Yosef on Midrash Tanchuma and Midrash Rabbah, loc. cit.; Sifsei Chachamim on Rashi, loc. cit., et al. See Bava Metzia 107b, “Sickness… this refers to cold.”

If forced, it could be said that the very act of sleeping outside of one’s home – particularly for a king and the son of the king – in and of itself involves discomfort.

This is also true according to the Torah’s straightforward meaning, as evident from the fact that Rashi cites these points in his commentary. See statements below in both the main text and the footnotes.

Shmos 13:20.

True, they were also there for several hours during the first day, because they came there (i.e., to Sukkos) in a very short time (Rashi, Shmos 12:37). Also, the gathering of the entire Jewish people to Ramses took only a short time because they were brought “on the wings of eagles” (Rashi, Shmos 19:4, based on the Mechilta to that verse. Note Likkutei Torah, Vayikra 14a.*) Nevertheless, their stay in Sukkos was primarily at night.

* That source speaks of the Jews “coming to Ramses.” Siddur im Dach (p. 301a) associates this phenomenon with their coming to Sukkos. The difference between the sources is dependent on our Sages’ interpretation of the verse (Shmos 12:39), “and they baked the dough.” The difference revolves around the question: In which place was it baked? See Torah Shleimah on the above verse.

Bamidbar 33:6; Shmos 13:20.

See Targum Yonason ben Uziel, Shmos 12:37, “They set forth… to Sukkos… there, they were covered by the seven Clouds of Glory.”

Shmos 13:21.

It could be said that the reason they did not need the Clouds of Glory for the journey from Ramses to Sukkos was because that journey was carried out in a manner of “I carried you on the wings of eagles” (Rashi, Shmos, 12:37.). Therefore, there was no need for the Clouds of Glory.

See Sukkah 11b; Mechilta and Midrash Tanchuma on Shmos 12:37; Mechilta, Shmos 13:20; Toras Kohanim, Vayikra 23:43; Targum Yonason ben Uziel, Targum Unkelos, and Rashi on Vayikra, loc. cit. Note also Rashi, Bamidbar 9:18, based on Bereisa D’Meleches HaMishkan 4:1.

The Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, sec. 625, based on Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, sec. 625.

By contrast, the fact that the Clouds of Glory would travel before the Jewish people, flattening the hills and elevating the low lands, and killing snakes and scorpions (Mechilta, Shmos 13:21; Beraisa d’Meleches HaMishkan, loc. cit.; Sifri and Rashi on Bamidbar 10:34; Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Beshallach, sec. 3) was not necessary until the Jews reached the desert itself (after crossing the Sea of Reeds – see footnote 60 below).* In the desert, there were no designated routes, and it is a place habituated by “snakes, vipers and scorpions” (Devarim 8:15).

* Even according to Targum Yonason ben Uziel, Shmos 12:37, who maintains that the Clouds of Glory were present already when the Jews camped in Sukkos, nevertheless, the fundamental need for the Clouds of Glory was during the Jews’ journey in the actual desert.

Note the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (mentioned in the Mechilta and Mid­rash Tanchuma on Shmos 12:37) that the term Sukkos mentioned in Shmos 12:37 and 13:20 refers solely to the Clouds of Glory.

Shmos 14:12.

To add to the pointedness of the comparison – even though without the addition, the comparison can be understood based on the above: In all the other instances where the Jews “tried G‑d” in the desert, their fundamental complaint came because they were hungry or thirsty. Their complaint came because of a physical need; it did not begin with a logical argument.

At Marah, it is written (Shmos 15:24), they complained merely, “What shall we drink?” In the Sin Desert, they complained that (ibid. 16:2ff.) “this entire congregation” would die “of famine.” This was the reason for their protest, “If only we had died… in the land of Egypt.” See Rashi’s commentary on Shmos 16:2. In Refidim, they protested (ibid. 17:1ff.), “There is no water…. Give us water.” (It was only when Moshe responded to them, asking them a logical question, did it arouse a logical response on their part, “Why did you lead us up from Egypt?”

When they desired meat (Bamidbar 11:4ff.), their complaint was motivated by physical desire. Only afterwards, and as a result did “the Children of Israel also cry,” which indicates, as Rashi explains on that passage,* that they were looking for a pretext to complain. After Miriam’s death (ibid. 20:2ff.), the people complained yet again. However, their complaint came about because, “there was no water for the congregation.” Therefore, “they gathered against Moshe,” as Rashi explains. This situation and the challenge was the same as at Refidim. Moreover, even their complaint itself (and, similarly, that of the spies, ibid. 14:2) began with an expression of their desire (ibid. 20:4), “Would it be that we had…”; it was not a matter of logic. Similarly, when they complained after journeying from Mount Hor (ibid. 21:5ff.), “there is no food and no water,” their complaint stemmed from their physical needs.

By contrast, at Pi HaChirus, their complaint began with a question, a point of logic.

* The explanation here is built on Rashi’s commentary.

Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, the maamarim entitled Eleh Maasei and their explanations.

Cf. Yechezkel 20:35. See the commentary of Rabbeinu Bachya, Or HaChayim, et al., on the beginning of this Torah reading; Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 20a ff., and other sources.

Sanhedrin 93b.

Zechariah 13:2. In a similar vein, it is said (Yeshayahu 25:8), “Death will be swallowed up forever.” See Sefer HaMaamarim 5628, p. 40ff.

Michah 7:15.

See the maamar entitled Kimei Tzeitzcha, 5708, the beginning of sec. 12, which explains that the redemption from Egypt brought about a new and fundamental development. It actually opened the pathway of redemption. See the end of that maamar.

See also Maharal’s Gevuros Ha­Shem, ch. 61, which explains that the redemption from Egypt brought about an essential distinction within the Jewish people. From that time onward, they became characterized as a free people. That defined their nature. Although afterwards it occurred that they were conquered by other nations and exiled, that essential characteristic was not nullified. Inherently, they remained free men. Note also Zohar, Vol. II, p. 40a, which states that the Exodus from Egypt removed the Jews from the sovereignty of the nations and brought them under G‑d’s sovereignty.

Note our Sages’ statement that, after the Giving of the Torah – at which time, G‑d uttered the Ten Commandments, which begin “I am G‑d… Who took you out of the land of Egypt” – the Jews became defined as G‑d’s servants. As a result, they could never be sold permanently as servants to others, because “My claim to them has precedence” (Toras Kohanim, Rashi, Vayikra 25:42; Rashi, ibid. 25:55).

Shmos 14:30.

Ibid. 15:16.

Ibid. 15:1.

See Alshich on the beginning of our Torah reading, where he states, “So too, difficulties occurred during most of these journeys,” i.e., most, but not all.

Bamidbar Rabbah 23:3, uses the past tense, “when they returned.” That wording can also be interpreted in a similar manner to that cited in the main text.

As explicitly stated in Alshich, loc. cit.

With difficulty, it could be said that the intent is that they returned – i.e., reviewed – these places in their memory, thought, and speech.

Cf. Chagigah 5b.

See also Likkutei Torah, Ba­midbar, p. 91a ff. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 15, p. 243ff., translated in Selections from Likkutei Sichos, Bereishis, p. 374ff., which focuses on similar ideas.

Yirmeyahu 2:6. See sec. 8.

T he maamar entitled Al Kein Yomru HaMoshlim, 5691, sec. 2 (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim, Vol. 1, p. 192b).

The tzimtzum was willful and purposeful – it is the only way that the intent of establishing a dwelling for G‑d in this lowly realm could be achieved. Nevertheless, the actual concealment of G‑dliness is undesirable.

See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 3, p. 976, footnote 19; Vol. 5, p. 61ff.; Vol. 6, p. 237 (regarding the Jews’ journeys), et al.

Note the commentary of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura, on Rashi’s interpretation here, which states, ‘On their way back,’ in other words, when they were close to enter Eretz [Yisrael] and return to the level of their ancestors….”

Based on the explanations in the main text, it is possible to expound on a deeper message implied by “the wine of the Torah,”* found in Rashi’s commentary. The two interpretations – that of Rav Moshe HaDarshan and Midrash Tanchuma – reflect the two different states of the soul.

The first interpretation – (that of Rav Moshe HaDarshan) who states that the journeys allude to G‑d’s kindnesses at the time – refers to the descent of the soul to this material plane. True, all these journeys, the descents discussed in our Torah reading, took place when the Jews were already living in this world, souls enclothed in bodies and were found in “the desert of the nations.” Nevertheless, it can be said that this interpretation alludes to the descent of the soul into the body. Although as a whole, the soul descends into the body at birth, and every day, G‑d renews the descent of the soul, enabling a person to awaken as “a new creation” (the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, Mahadura Kama 4:1). This is indicated by the thanks we offer to G‑d each day anew for “returning my soul to me.” We continue, acknowledging that “the soul You gave me is pure,” relating a descent through different levels in the spiritual realms, beginning from “the sublime purity,” which refers to the realm of Atzilus (Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 47a). From that lofty rung, the soul descends through the entire chainlike progression of existence (Seder HaHishtalshelus) as reflected in the wording of the blessing, “You created it,” referring to the world of Beriah, until “and You guard it in my midst,” referring to the return of the soul to this world. Note Bereishis Rabbah, the end of ch. 14, which states, “At the time when a person is sleeping, [his soul] ascends and elicits vitality from Above.” (See similar statements in Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 12.)

The second interpretation, “on their way back,” refers to the ascent of the soul after its descent and life on this earth.**

(These two dimensions parallel two phrases at the beginning of the Torah reading (Bamidbar 33:2), “Moshe recorded their departure points for their journeys,” and “these are their journeys to*** their departure points,” which refer to the descent of the soul from Above at birth and its ascent from below upon its passing, as explained in Likkutei Torah, Ba­midbar, pp. 91a ff., 96a, et al.****

From this, we can appreciate the precision of the allusion implied by the unusual wording used by Rashi here, “Rabbi Tanchuma expounds upon it using a different interpretation (drashah achares).” The implication is that the state and the Divine service of the soul as it ascends from this world is “different,” incomparably higher, than its state at the time of its descent to this material plane. Its derishah***** and Divine service is entirely different (acheres).

(In this context, see Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 2, p. 386a-b, with regard to the interpretation of the phrase (Bereishis 30:24), “May G‑d grant me another son,” that the son who is added is another, on an entirely different level. Consult that source. As explained there, this is referring to “the transformation of the sitra achra (a term referring to the power of evil), and the animal soul – forces that are “other,” estranged – into a son.” This resembles the ascent from “the places where they angered Me.”)

* The Alter Rebbe once said, “The commentary of Rashi on the Chumash is ‘the wine of the Torah’” (Sichas Simchas Torah, 5697; Hayom Yom, entry 29 Shvat). The term “the wine of the Torah” refers to the Torah’s mystic secrets (Imrei Binah, Shaar HaKerias Shema, sec. 53ff.).

** See the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov (quoted in Degel Machneh Efraim, the beginning of Parshas Maasei; Kesser Shem Tov, (Kehos edition) Hosafos, sec. 23, sec. 30 in the latest printing) that every person goes through parallels to the 42 journeys of the Jewish people “from the day he is born until his [soul] returns to its [place in the True] World.”

*** The translation of this verse reflects the interpretation the Alter Rebbe gives in Likkutei Torah, loc. cit. The intent is to refer to the soul’s spiritual journey in returning to its source Above. As the phrase appears in the Torah, it should be translated as “from their departure points,” not “to their departure points.”

**** Based on the above, further explanations can be given from the perspective of “the wine of the Torah” found in Rashi’s commentary:

a) Rashi also cites the names of the authors of these two interpretations – Rav Moshe Hadarshan and Rabbi Tanchuma because these names allude to the two motifs mentioned above. Moshe is an allusion to Moshe Rabeinu, whose mode of service involved drawing down Divine influence from Above. Tanchuma shares the same root letters as nechamah, “consolation,” alluding to the consolation that is granted the soul for its descent, i.e., the ascent that will follow the descent.

b) Rashi uses three words which share the root darash: Rav Moshe Ha darshan , darash bo drashah . According to the mystic perspective of the Torah, in the four disciplines of Torah study reflected by the acronym Pardes, drashah relates to the world of Beriah, the beginning of created existence, which is connected to the descent of the soul. As mentioned in the main body of the footnote, the initial aspect of the soul’s descent begins with Atah berasa, “You created it.” Similarly, the beginning of the ascent, which continues until the soul attains the perfection of true unity with G‑d, comes through a person’s meditation that he and the entire world were created from absolute nothingness and, therefore, require an ongoing and continuous infusion of Divine life-energy for their existence to be maintained, as indicated by the verse (Tehillim 119:89), “Forever, G‑d, Your word stands” (see Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch, 1, where this concept is explained at length.

***** Derashah, “interpretation,” and derishah, “seeking,” share the same root letters. It could be said that there is an implication that, as the soul ascends in teshuvah, its derishah, the manner in which it seeks out G‑d is acheres, of an entirely different nature than before.

Yeshayahu 12:1.

See Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 11. See also the sources from Likkutei Sichos cited in footnote 41.

I.e., not only did the fact that they were compelled to journey through the desert for 40 years come as a result of the Sin of the Spies, but also during many of the journeys themselves, the Jews committed sins that aroused G‑d’s anger, as Rashi mentions in his commentary at the beginning of Parshas Devarim.

With regard to the concepts to be explained in the main text, see also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 65ff.

Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas VaYeishev, sec. 4. See Sukkah 52b, which states, “There are four things that the Holy One, blessed be He, regrets to have created… [one of these is] the yetzer hara, as it is written (Micah 4:6), ‘v’asher haraoti – and which I corrupted,’ [the implication being that man’s inclination toward evil was given him by G‑d].”

Tehillim 66:5. The translation follows the understanding of the Mid­rash. In a literal context, the phrase would be translated differently.

Toras Chayim, Bereishis, Parshas Toldos, the maamar entitled Veyitein Lecha, sec. 10ff.; the Mitteler Rebbe’s Shaarei Teshuvah, Vol. 1, p. 20d ff. See also the Alter Rebbe’s maamar entitled U’Moshe Nigash, sec. 5 (Or HaTorah Shmos, Vol. 3 p. 1017), the maamar entitled Veyitein Lecha and its explanation in Sefer HaMaamarim 5562. Note also the Tzemach Tzedek’s Biurei HaZohar, p. 267ff.

Toras Chayim, Bereishis, Parshas Toldos, p. 13a (154a). Note, however, Biurei HaZohar, loc. cit., which offers a slightly different perspective, stating, “By contrast, when a person comes to make himself impure, an opportunity is provided for him” (Menachos 29b), however, he is not assisted in this, Heaven forbid,” This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

See Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 5:4, which states that if a person did not have free choice, “according to which judgement or sense of justice would retribution be administered to the wicked or reward [granted] to the righteous?”

Toras Chayim, loc. cit., p. 15d (156d).

This is the explanation of our Sages’ statement (Nidah 16b) that at the time a child is conceived, the qualities and attributes he will possess are determined by Divine dictate. However, “[whether he will be] righteous or wicked is not dictated.” The implication is that when G‑d’s knowledge is dictated, i.e., revealed through speech, it compels a person. However, when the Divine knowledge remains in a hidden state, this allows a person free choice (Toras Chayim, ibid, sec. 13; Shaarei Teshuvah, loc. cit.). See also p. 253ff., above, which deals with similar ideas.

See explanations regarding all the above in Toras Chayim, sec. 11ff.; Biurei HaZohar, loc. cit., pp. 265-266; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 65ff., and the sources mentioned there.

See Bereishis Rabbah 2:5, 3:8, which states, “From the [very] beginning of the creation of the world, the Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked,” and further states (2:5), “I do not know which of them He desires.”

See the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov (Tzafnas Panei’ach, Ben Poreis Yosef; et al., cited in Baal Shem Tov al HaTorah, Bereishis, sec. 41ff.), which explain that the reason there is a question which of the above G‑d desires is because the actions of the wicked lead to the recognition of the higher quality of light that can be appreciated only because of the darkness. Consult those sources.

Koheles 2:13 states: “I saw an advantage to… light over darkness.” As explained in the maamar entitled Basi LeGani, 5710 and, particularly, in the Rebbe’s explanation of that maamar, 5731 (based on the Zohar, Vol. III, p. 47b), beyond the simple meaning of the phrase – that light has an advantage over darkness – there is an inner message: The superior quality of light (יתרון האור) comes “from darkness,” from the transformation of darkness into light. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 10, p. 160ff. (translated in Selections from Likkutei Sichos, Bereishis, p. 627ff.), et al., where this concept is explained.

See Yoma 86b.

Sifri, Devarim 1:2.

This is evident from the fact that Aisam was located at “the edge of the desert” (Shmos 13:20, Bamidbar 33:6). When they journeyed from Aisam to Pi Hachiros, they were going “backwards towards Egypt.” Pi Hachiros is identified with Pisom (Rashi, Shmos 14:2), which was one of the storage cities built by the Jews in Egypt. See Shmos 15:22, Bamidbar 33:8. Thus, during these three journeys, the Jews had not entered the desert in a complete sense.

Nevertheless, in a larger sense, these places can also be considered part of the desert when compared to the settled land of Egypt. See Shmos 14:3, et al.

See Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 32b, “Within a person, there exists [a parallel to] an inhabited city, a field, and a desert.”

Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 20c, Devarim, loc. cit., et al.

The statement in the main text parallels the statements in Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 92a, in the explanation of the maamar entitled Eileh Maasei regarding the difference between the journeys until the Giving of the Torah, in which the Jews passed through a desert that was close to an inhabited region, which corresponds to kelipas noga, and those following the Giving of the Torah in which they passed through lands distant from an inhabited region, corresponding to the three impure kelipos.

See Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 1, p. 203a; Vol. 5, p. 859b, which explains that a field – which is an intermediate state between a city and a desert – “represents [the sefirah of] malchus as a whole, from which kelipas noga also derives nurture.”

Note the maamar entitled Vayeitzei Yitzchak Lasuach BaSadeh (Torah Or, p. 17b) – cited in Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 32d – which explains that a field represents the manner in which “the Torah descends in a chainlike manner [even] into darkness… even into falsehood….” Consult that source.

The fact that, in the analogy, the son was described as “sick” even before the journeys can be explained based on the concept that there are several levels of sickness; see the Arizal’s explanation (Taamei Ha­Mitzvos, Parshas Vayeira); it is also explained at length in the maamar entitled Chamishim Shaarei Binah, 5653 (published in Sefer HaSichos 5703, p. 201ff.), that חולה, Hebrew for “sickness,” is numerically equivalent to 49, referring to a person who attained 49 Gates of Wisdom, but is lacking the 50th gate.

Similarly, regarding the concept at hand, as the soul exists in the spiritual realms before its descent, it can be termed “sick” because it is lacking the ascent that is achieved through the descent to this material realm.

See Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabbos 14:3, which states, “Sickness refers to the yetzer hara.” See Maharzav to Bamidbar Rabbah on the verse at hand.

Shabbos 11a.

Devarim 30:19.

Bereishis Rabbah 12:15; Pesikta Rabesi, ch. Bechodesh HaShevi’i; Rashi, Bereishis 1:1, explained at length in the maamar entitled Shuvah Yisrael, 5659 (Sefer HaMaamarim 5659, p. 25ff.)

The animal soul’s logic through which it chooses material benefit rather than Divine light is, in an ultimate sense, faulty. However, because of the animal soul’s inherent nature, from its standpoint, such a choice is what appears true and logical (see the maamar entitled Bayom HaAsh­tei Esor, 5731).

See the maamar entitled Kevod Malchuscha, 5660, where this concept is explained at length.

Berachos 57b.

Even according to the version which substitutes yashavnu (“we sat”) for “we slept” (see footnote 3 above), our Sages (Megillah 21a) comment, “[The implication of the word] yeshivah is solely akavah.” In the context of our Sages’ statement akavah means “tarry” or “linger.” However, it also has the meaning of “withhold” and “impede.” See the interpretation of this interrelationship according to Chassidus, as explained in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 7, p. 89ff., and the sources mentioned there.

The reference is to the first tzim­tzum which, in contrast to the later tzimtzumim, involved a complete withdrawal of Divine light, not merely a contraction.

See the maamarim of the holiday of Shavuos, 5675 (the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 2), and those of the holiday of Shavuos, 5704, where this concept is explained at length. Although the tzimtzum involves the contraction and the concealment of Divine light, the intent was to enable that light to be revealed in a framework where it could not possibly be revealed had the tzimtzum not taken place. Before the tzimtzum, there was no possibility for infinite G‑dliness to be revealed in a finite world. Through the tzimtzum, not only was a finite world created, but the possibility was generated for G‑d’s infinite light to be revealed within it.

See the maamar entitled Shuvah, loc. cit., which explains the analogy given in Bereishis Rabbah, loc. cit., “If one will mix cold water into [the hot water]…, this refers to the attribute of mercy.” Note the citation there of the commentary of Ramaz on the Zohar, Parshas Shelach.

The attribute of gevurah, “might,” (also associated with judgment and the power of restraint) – which is the source for tzimtzum, contraction – is identified with fire and heat. The attribute of mercy (chesed) – which counteracts the effect of tzimtzum – is identified with “cooling.”

Hayom Yom, entry 29 Shvat. See the first marginal note to footnote 43 above.

Straightforwardly, Rashi’s intent is to refer to the continuation of the passage in Midrash Tanchuma, which explains the analogue, “Thus, the Holy One, blessed be He, told him….” However, from the perspective of “the wine of the Torah” contained within Rashi’s commentary, it is possible to offer the interpretation brought in the main text.

Rashi’s commentary, Yoma 86a, s.v. kan mei’ahavah. See the lengthy explanation in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 17, p. 185ff.

Shoftim 5:31. See Tanya, ch. 26.

Published in Toras Menachem, Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, Vol. 2, p. 350ff.