Shemot: The Jews’ True Power

See the Baal Shem Tov’s letter, published at the end of Ben Poras Yosef, Kesser Shem Tov, sec. 1, et al.

Tanya, ch. 36, based on Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Naso, sec. 16, et al.

True, the Beis HaMikdash had a sub-structure of wood, but that was only for support.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 6, p. 116.

See Etz Chayim, Shaar HaKlallim, ch. 1.

See Tanya, ch. 36.

The words “as it were” are used because in truth there cannot be any existence outside of Him. However, created beings perceive that they exist as separate entities, “outside of Him,” as it were.

Cited in the maamar entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, and the maamar entitled Shokav Amudei Sheish 5702, sec. 19.

To refer back to the analogy of a teacher and a student mentioned above: Even though the student’s understanding is new and is something that he could not achieve on his own, it was always within his potential. After all, he is a person with a mind. Instilling an awareness of G‑dliness in our world is comparable to teaching intellectual concepts to an animal, i.e., a being with no capacity for abstract thinking.

Tosafos (Pesachim 30b, entry HaTorah; Zevachim, 96a, entry Ela); see also Rambam, Hilchos Keilim 1:6, 13; 15:1, et al.

Sotah 11b.

Shmos 1:14.

See Shmos Rabbah 1:11. See also Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha to Sotah, loc. cit., which interprets the above-cited Talmudic passage in this manner.

See Chiddushei Aggados, loc. cit.

Note that Rashi states in his commentary to Shmos 24:10, “The Jews were enslaved to make bricks.”

Shmos 5:1ff.

Bamidbar Rabbah 15:20; Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Bahaaloscha, sec. 13; Midrash Tanchuma, Buber edition, ibid., sec. 23; see also Shmos Rabbah, 1:11.

Shmos 1:13.

See also Sotah 11b.

See ibid. 11a.

We cannot say that they spent their entire day making bricks. For during a portion of the day, they built the cities for Pharaoh.* It can, however, be said that building the cities was also included in the work “with mortar and bricks.” See the Maharsha, loc. cit., who states that “in the beginning, they built cities for him,” interpreting building the cities as part of the work “with mortar and bricks.”In that vein, the phrase “with mortar and bricks” can be interpreted “with mortar” – to make bricks; and “with bricks” – to build cities from them.

Ramban (in his commentary to Shmos 1:11) and Or HaChayim (in his commentary to Shmos 1:14) state that building the cities is not included in the work “with bricks and mortar.” They explain that, at the outset, the Jews began building cities, and only afterwards, were they forced to make bricks. Nevertheless, the simple meaning of the Talmudic and Midrashic passages cited indicates that brick-making was their first and primary task, as explained above. See Or HaChayim (in his commentary to Shmos 1:11) who states, “According to the Sages’ interpretation, one must say that Pharaoh’s words of deception (בְּפֶה רַךְ) preceded his imposition of taskmasters over the Jewish people.”

* It cannot be said that the Jews built the cities after nightfall, because:

a) Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Vayeitzei, sec. 9, implies that only “the work in the field” was performed “after they returned to their homes in the evening to rest,” but not the work of building the cities.

b) According to this conception, building the cities – one of the primary tasks performed by the Jewish people – is not at all mentioned in the verse, “And they embittered their lives” (it is merely included as a secondary factor in “all their work”).

See Shmos Rabbah 1:12, which states that the Egyptians told the Jews, “If you go to sleep in your homes... you will not complete your quota [of bricks].”

Bereishis Rabbah 27:2; Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Vayeitzei, sec. 9.

This refers to the enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt in an actual physical sense, and the spiritual parallel to the exile and Exodus from Egypt, which every person undergoes in his Divine service, for “each and every day, a person is obligated to see himself as if he left Egypt today” (Tanya, ch. 47, note the explanation there).

See a similar concept in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 3, p. 848ff.

Thus, it is said of the Torah and its mitzvos (daily liturgy, Evening Service), “For they are our life.” See Kuntres U’Mayon, maamar 7. See also the maamar entitled BeShaah SheHikdimu in the series of maamarim of that name, 5672, Vol. 1, sec. 2, that states, “For this reason, the type of activities in which a person is involved is very significant, since a person introduces G‑dly power into each and every activity he performs.” See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 3, p. 848, note 22.

See Tanya, chs. 9 and 12, et al.

Cf. Tehillim 48:2. Note the interpretation in the notes of the Tzemach Tzedek, Yahel Or, to the verse.

Bereishis Rabbah 16:4 states that all the gentile powers that cause distress (מֵצִירִים, meitzirim) to the Jews are called Egypt (מִצְרַיִם, Mitzrayim).

“The realm of unholiness corresponds to the realm of holiness” (Zohar, Vol. III, p. 47b, interpreting Koheles 7:14).

See secs. 2 and 3 of the maamar entitled VeHayah HaNishar BiTziyon, 5691, and sec. 3 of the maamar entitled Or LiArbaah Asor 5700, et al.

See Sefer HaYetzirah (the conclusion of ch. 4) which states, “Two stones build two houses....” Note also Negaim 12:2.

For this reason, particularly, the Beis HaMikdash, the consummate expression of “the city of our G‑d,” Jerusalem, was built primarily of stone, as will be explained in secs. 5 and 8.

Zohar, Vol. II, p. 148b; Yahel Or, p. 358, which quotes our Sages’ comment (Midrash HaGadol), to Bereishis 5:3, that between giving birth to Kayin and Hevel and giving birth to Shes, Adam fathered monkey-like creatures.

Cf. Bereishis 11:3. See Shaar HaPesukim, the beginning of Parshas Shmos; Likkutei Torah, LiGimmel Parshiyos on the verse, p. 72c ff; Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 3, p. 662a ff., Vol. 6, p. 1066a ff.

Avos 2:12.

Mishlei 3:6. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 3 pp. 907, 932, which explains the difference between these two modes of service.

See Rashi, Bereishis 25:23, based on Megillah 6a, and see also Zohar, Vol. II, pp. 236a, 240a, which explain that building Jerusalem leads to the destruction of Tzur, and conversely, building Tzur leads, Heaven forbid, to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Tzur is usually translated as Tyre, a port city to the north of Eretz Yisrael, which served as a source of secular influence to the Holy Land and therefore is seen as the opposite of Jerusalem. The opposing relationship between the two places is further developed by Bereishis Rabbah 61:7 and other sources that identify Tzur with Caesarea, which was built by the Romans as an outpost through which they could spread their power and culture throughout Eretz Yisrael.

See Torah Or, p. 77c; Likkutei Torah, LiGimmel Parshiyos, p. 72c ff.; see also sec. 7 of the maamar entitled VeHayah HaNishar cited above.

See the maamar entitled VeHayah HaNishar; Likkutei Torah, LiGimmel Parshiyos, and Torah Or, loc. cit.

Rambam, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 1:8.

Devarim 8:9, interpreted by Seforno, ibid. 8:7, to mean that their stones are strong and appropriate to be used for building.

See Torah Or, loc. cit.

Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 131:20. Vayikra 26:1 states, “Do not place a kneeling stone in your land to prostrate yourself upon it.” As a result of this prohibition, a Jew is forbidden to prostrate himself on a stone floor.

As related in many sources (Tamid 5:6; Rambam, Hilchos Temidim U’Musafim 3:7, 17, et al.), prostrating oneself was one of the services performed in the Beis HaMikdash.

Rashi, Megillah 22b, s.v. lo osra. Rambam, Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 6:6ff (note the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh), offer a different explanation for the prohibition mentioned in the main text, stating that the prohibition was instituted because it was a pagan practice. Even according to this interpretation, it is possible to explain that the pagans adopted this method of worship because it was one of the services in the Beis HaMikdash.

To cite a parallel: The prohibition against sacrificing on a monument (which is mentioned before the prohibition of prostrating oneself on a stone floor in Rambam, loc. cit.)was “cherished by the Patriarchs” (Sifri, Devarim 16:22), but was forbidden afterwards because it was adopted by the pagans. It is possible to explain that because it was cherished by the Patriarchs, it was adopted by the pagans (see Rashi, Devarim, loc. cit.; note also Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 1,p. 198ff.).

It must, however, be noted that the Beis HaMikdash (where there was a stone floor) was built many years after the commandment against prostrating oneself on a stone floor was given.

See Pardes Shaar Erchei Ha­Kinnuim, erech leveinah (quoted in Or HaTorah, Shmos, Vol. 1,p. 24; the maamar entitled Zos Chanukas, 5640, the conclusion of sec. 14; see also the maamar entitled VeHayah HaNishar, loc. cit., sec. 7) which states that “A brick comes from the side of impurity.”

In a larger sense, this relates to all transgressions, for when a person commits even a minor transgression of a Rabbinic command, at that time he becomes separate from the oneness and unity of G‑d, just as through the actual worship of false divinities (see Tanya, chs. 24–25).

See Avodah Zarah 46a (see also Sotah 47a, although in some printings it was eliminated by the censor, which states that one of Yehoshua ben Perachia’s students, presumably Yeshu of Nazareth, stood up a brick and bowed down to it).

See Rashi’s commentary to Avodah Zarah, loc. cit., which emphasizes that a brick erected as an object of worship can be forbidden because it was fashioned by man. By contrast, stones that slid from a mountain and were worshipped are not forbidden because they were not fashioned by man. Note also the verse (Eichah 3:38), “From the mouth of the Most High will not issue forth evil.” The implication is that a stone, a creation “of the Most High,” is inherently above connection to the worship of false deities.

See also Likkutei Torah, LiGimmel Parshiyos, loc. cit.

Rashi, Bereishis 11:3.

Note Sisrei Torah to the Zohar, Vol. I, p. 75a, and our Sages’ statement (Eruvin 6a and the sources cited there) regarding Rav’s coming to a town in Bavel, “He found a bika, and established a fence,” which interprets bika, the term translated here as “valley,” as “an open, unprotected place”. See also the maamar entitled VeHayah HaNishar, sec. 7, which interprets bika as referring to a place where there had been a rupture and there is separation.

Eichah 3:6.

In its original, the sichah quotes the citation as it appears in many sources within the maamarim of the Rebbeim. The concept is cited with this same wording in Shelah, Bayis Chochmah (p. 16b) and Beis HaGadol (p. 36a). Sanhedrin 24a (quoted in Shelah, Shaar HaGadol, p. 35b) states, “This refers to the manner in which Torah is studied in Bavel.”

As explained in Chassidus (Torah Or, p. 17b; Shaarei Orah, Shaar Chanukah, p. 22b ff.; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 24, p. 174), the Talmud Bavli is characterized by a multitude of questions, differences of opinion, and controversies. By contrast, the Talmud Yerushalmi communicates its teachings more or less directly, with far less controversy and dialectic discussion. In Eretz Yisrael, the environment of light and holiness led to the Torah being studied with greater clarity. In Bavel, this spiritual light was lacking. Consequently, like a person groping in darkness, who searches for direction, the scholars of Bavel would present arguments and challenges. Nevertheless, it is specifically through the process of clarification that this environment calls forth that it is possible to grasp the inner depth and meaning of the Torah. Therefore, the halachah is determined according to the Talmud Bavli.

The italics, found also in the original text, emphasize that the Egyptians appreciated the holiness of the Jewish people and sought to derive nurture from that potential.

Compare to Tanya, Iggeres HaTeshuvah, the conclusion of ch. 6.

To cite a parallel: In his Shulchan Aruch, Hilchos Talmud Torah 4:3, the Alter Rebbe writes that until a wicked person repents, the Torah and mitzvos he observes generate increased vitality in the realm of kelipah.

This parenthetic addition would frequently be made by the Rebbe Rashab. The intent is explained in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 19, p. 27ff.

See Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Naso, sec. 16; see also Bamidbar Rabbah 13:6.

In the year of the Alter Rebbe’s passing, 5573 (1812), 24 Teves fell on Motzo’ei Shabbos, Parshas Shmos.

Tanya, ch. 36.

In a similar vein, see Menachos 82a that states, “Any sacrifice that is obligatory may only be brought from non-sacred [animals.”] Animals which were consecrated are not fit to be used.

See Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:16(3) which applies the verse (II Shmuel 7:6), “And I traveled in a tent,” to the Sanctuary. (See also Torah Or, Parshas Vayigash, p. 43b).

See Shir HaShirim Rabbah, loc. cit., which applies the verse (Tehillim 132:14), “This is My resting place forever” to the Beis HaMikdash. (See also Torah Or, loc. cit.)

Indeed, it is forbidden to build the Beis HaMikdash with wood that is visible [Rambam, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 1:9 (this view is also accepted by Raavad, see the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh) and Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 492, also cited in Torah Or, loc. cit.].

The reason why the Beis HaMikdash was built with stones and not with bricks – although they are lower – is explained in footnote 100, below.

See the explanations in Torah Or, loc. cit., Toras Chayim, the maamar entitled Vayigash, sec. 8, and in Siddur im Dach, p. 21b.

In Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 99d, and in Maamarei Admur HaZakein, Hanachos HaRav Pinchas, p. 81, similar concepts are used to explain the advantage possessed by the Sanctuary of Shiloh over the Sanctuary in the desert, for in Shiloh, the walls were made of stone.*

* The standard text of Likkutei Torah states “curtains,” but that is a printing error, as reflected in the notes of the Rebbe Rashab printed at the back of Likkutei Torah.

As reflected in the sources mentioned in footnote 7.

Bamidbar 5:17.

See Torah Or (the maamar entitled Anochi Magen Loch), p. 12a; the notes on this maamar in Likkutei Torah LiGimmel Parshiyos, p. 88a, printed also in Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 4, p. 693a ff.

Bava Metzia 86b; see also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 1, p. 28.

The analogy of light (also described in Chassidic terminology as gilui milimaalah, meaning “revelation from Above”) implies a disadvantage. The revelation does not permeate the lower realms as they exist within their own context. For example, when a shuttered window is opened and light enters a dark room, a fundamental change has not been made in the room itself. If the shutter is closed, the room will be dark, just as it was previously. Similarly, in the analogue, in the Sanctuary, although G‑d’s light reached down to the level of the earth, it did not make a permanent change within the earth on which the Sanctuary was erected. Indeed, once the Sanctuary was moved to another place, the earth remained ordinary, as it was before the Sanctuary had been erected. See footnotes 77 and 79 below. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 29, p. 74.

With regard to the Beis HaMikdash, its construction brought about a permanent change in the nature of the place on which it was built. Therefore, even in the present age, thousands of years after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, its site is still holy and must be treated with reverence (Rambam, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 6:16). This parallels the motif of haalah milimatah limaalah, rising upward from below, in which created beings on the lower plane are elevated, refined, and brought close to G‑dliness.

It can be explained that this reflects the distinction between the two reasons given for the creation of the world by Etz Chayim (Shaar HaKlallim): “to be generous to His created beings,” reflecting the motif of revelation from Above, and “so that they recognize His greatness,” that the created beings themselves be elevated.

This also reflects the distinction between the rationale “so that they recognize His greatness” and the reason for creation mentioned by the Zohar (Vol. II, Parshas Bo, p. 42b), “so that He makes Himself known to them.” “So that He makes Himself known” implies that G‑d will make the created beings aware of Him even against their will, as it were, i.e., that there be a revelation of G‑dliness so powerful that it compels the created beings to recognize Him. “So that He makes Himself known” thus follows the motif of revelation of G‑dliness from Above. Independent of their refinement, He will make the created beings conscious of His existence.

The association of the rationale “so that He makes Himself known” with the motif of revelation from Above is also reflected in the Etz Chayim, Shaar Alef, and Shaar HaHakdamos, Hakdamah 3, which mentions as a reason for creation, “So that the perfection of His powers be revealed.” From the statements of the Etz Chayim that “this rationale was already explained in the Zohar... also in Parshas Bo,” one can conclude that the rationale “so that the perfection of His powers be revealed” shares the same general thrust as “so that He makes Himself known,” for both involve revelation from Above. See also the maamar entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, and the maamar entitled Shokav Amudei Sheish, 5702, sec. 18, that state that “so that the perfection of His powers be revealed” is an explanation of the Zohar’s statement,” so that He makes Himself known.”

In the above motif, however, there is no emphasis on the recipient or his willful acknowledgement of G‑d’s desires. With regard to “the created beings recognize[ing] His greatness,” by contrast, the intent and the focus is on the created beings and their appreciation of His greatness “so that they will merit to be a conduit [for Him].”

On this basis, we can appreciate why the reason given by the Etz Chayim Shaar Alef,and in Shaar HaHakdamos, “so that the perfection of His powers be revealed,” relates to the creation as a whole, while the explanation given in Shaar HaKlallim, “so that they recognize His greatness,” refers particularly to the “emanation of one point that includes ten” (i.e., the emanation of the Ten Sefiros of the Akudim that were contained in one kli). The rationale “so that they recognize His greatness” was consummated with the emanation of the Akudim (and not through the higher levels of Divine emanation), because the Akudim represent the beginning of the existence of keilim (the maamar entitled HaSam Nafsheinu, 5724). See the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 2, p. 1119.

Sefer Milchamos HaShem, Discourse 6, the conclusion of ch. 15, cited in Kitzurim VeHaaros LiTanya, p. 102.

The intent is that a truth represents reality, and because of its truth, it will be reflected in every setting. To cite a basic example from within the context of our world’s conceptual framework, 2+2=4. No matter how loudly someone may shout, “No, it equals 5,” the reality will not change. Taking the concept further: Einstein’s theory, e=mc², was not altered by the fact that people were not aware of this reality for thousands of years. Since this theory is true, its truth is reflected in the interplay of energy and matter to the extent that, ultimately, it had to be recognized.

Extending this concept even further, the point is not only that a true concept is timeless and universal, but that it can be recognized in settings and frameworks of reference far different from the one in which it was originally taught. For example, in the realm of Torah study, a person may discover an underlying motif that explains a law of kashrus and see that same motif operate in Jewish business law.

To apply this concept in a spiritual context: Since G‑d is the true reality, even a frame of reference which outwardly does not recognize Him, and which defines existence in terms of its own conception, will ultimately come to the awareness of Him. It cannot help but do so, because He is the Truth of all being.

In the motif of haalaah milimatah limaalah, the lower rung is elevated and lifted to a higher level. The classic example used to illustrate this mode is one who studies and elevates his understanding. Once he has learned new concepts, he has changed himself; he now possesses a more developed intellectual potential than he did previously.

Within this level, there are two approaches: The first is illustrated by a student whose skills focus on his ability to recall his teacher’s instruction. Since he has assimilated and internalized the wisdom he was taught, his own level has advanced. Nevertheless, his advance is due primarily to the lessons received from his teacher. He has not fundamentally changed his own thinking processes.

The second approach is illustrated by a student who was taught not only to parrot his teacher, but to deal with new and different conceptual frameworks according to his teacher’s mindset. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 10, p. 82, which explains similar concepts while interpreting Avos 2:9, which describes Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenus as “a cemented cistern which does not lose a drop,” i.e., he preserves and perpetuates his teacher’s wisdom, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach “as a stream that flows with ever-increasing strength,” i.e., he extends his teacher’s wisdom to new and different situations concerning which he had not received instruction. These two approaches can be compared to the recognition of G‑dliness because of a revelation from Above, and the recognition that stems from proofs derived from the nature of creation itself.

I.e., even the student on the first level has changed his conceptual framework.

This represents the superiority of the pattern of revelation indicated by the expression (in the Lecha Dodi hymn): “Last in action, [but] first in thought” over that indicated by the phrase, “The beginning is implanted in the end and the end is implanted in the beginning” (Sefer Yetzirah 1:7). “The end” refers to the conclusion of the influence. In this level is implanted “the beginning,” the very beginning and root of the influence. (As explained in the main text, drawing down G‑d’s light to the lowest levels, “the end,” reveals its unlimited power, “the beginning.”)

“Last in action” by contrast, refers to the acceptance of the influence. This level is “first in thought,” reaching “the first,” the beginning – and indeed, a level loftier than the beginning – of “thought,” i.e., above even the root of the influence. When the influence is received and appreciated, the initial motivation of the giver, and indeed, the very source of that motivation, is realized (the maamar entitled HaSam Nafsheinu, loc. cit., see also Toras Chayim, the maamar entitled Vayigash, chs. 2 and 3); the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 2, p. 1119ff.; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 19, p. 384ff.

The series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 3, p. 1267, et al.

See Toras Chayim, loc. cit., ch. 3, where this concept is explained at length.

Rashi, Bereishis 18:1; see also Bereishis Rabbah 48:9.

See the maamar entitled HaChodesh HaZeh, 5700, sec. 3, and the maamar entitled BaYom HaShemini Atzeres, 5708, sec. 27, et al.

Through the analogy, the Rebbe is illustrating how two motifs function when one gives: the person’s own desire to give (which parallels the revelation of Divine light from Above) and the relationship between the giver and the recipient (which reflects the advantage achieved by the created beings through their recognition of G‑d).

When a person’s giving is merely an expression of his nature, he is confined within his own self. He is not necessarily concerned with the recipient; he gives because his own nature demands it, even if the recipient is someone on a lower level with whom he might not relate. He derives satisfaction from giving, as is true whenever a person exercises his inner potentials.

When, however, the giver identifies with the recipient and becomes concerned with how that person accepts the gift, he steps out of the limits of his own self and relates to the other. This awakens within him greater satisfaction, because it brings out a deeper point in his soul, a level where there is no distinction between him and the other person. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 6, p. 116.

To cite a parallel: Bava Basra 9b states, “Whoever gives a perutah to a poor person is granted six blessings, while one who appeases him with words is granted eleven blessings.” When giving charity, one does not have to relate to the recipient. On the contrary, as in the example of Avraham cited in the main text, it can be an expression of one’s own natural tendencies. Appeasing the poor person with words, however, involves communication and establishing a rapport with him, stepping beyond one’s own self.

In the analogue, the revelation of light from Above reflects a dimension of G‑dliness which is limited by G‑d’s own nature, as it were, i.e., it is an expression of light that does not leave room for anything else. This light is drawn down to the lowest levels of existence, showing how even in such a framework, this light can prevail.

The recognition of G‑dliness by the created beings, by contrast, reflects an unlimited dimension of G‑dliness, demonstrating that G‑d has no bounds whatsoever – neither darkness, nor light – and therefore can be appreciated by a created being, even though that being “lives in darkness,” i.e., feels separate from Him.

The meaning of the term tachash is a matter of question. An opinion in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Shabbos 2:5) interprets it as referring to the hide of an animal, perhaps the ermine. Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Terumah, sec. 6, maintains that it was a miraculous animal with a beautiful, multicolored hide, created for that time only.Note the commentaries to Shmos 25:5.

The bottom-most curtain of the roof was made of a mixture of fabrics including flax (from the plant kingdom), and three types of wool (from the animal kingdom) (Rashi, Shmos 26:1).

It is possible to explain that this reflects the function of an intermediary between one level (the roof made from the animal kingdom) and another (the boards made from the plant kingdom). Similarly, the lowest point of the boards stood within sockets – inanimate matter, thus, serving as an intermediary between the boards (from the plant kingdom) and the earth of the Sanctuary (inanimate matter, from the mineral kingdom).

A slight question might be raised because the roof of the Beis HaMikdash included “[wooden] panels and beams of cedar” (I Melachim 6:9), i.e., entities from the plant kingdom. See, however, Middos 4:6 which states that the Beis HaMikdash had a ceiling of mortar, stones, and plaster and lime above this. The passages from Torah Or and Toras Chayim cited in note 75 state, “The cedar beams in the ceiling were merely supports for the fundamental structure of the ceiling which was made from inanimate matter.” And “the beams merely supported the roof.” (See also Maamarei Admur HaZakein 5565, pp. 142, 144, 146.) Note also the sources cited from Likkutei Torah and the Siddur im Dach cited in footnote 55, which state that the beams were sunken into the ceilings. This is not the place for further discussion of this matter.

See Middos 3:8 (accordingto the version of the text cited by most commentaries); Kessef Mishneh commenting on Rambam, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 1:9; the commentaries to the Mishnah, Middos 1:6, et al.

Torah Or, the beginning of Parshas Vayigash, p. 43c ff.; Toras Chayim, the maamar entitled Vayigash, sec. 8.

To illustrate using analogies frequently used in Chassidus (see Toras Menachem, Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, Vol. 2, p. 465, et al.), there is a difference between a hand that writes an intellectual concept and the brain that conceives it. Although the concept flows through the hand, the hand is not identified with it at all. By contrast, the brain itself – even its very cell structure – becomes affected by the study of a concept.

Since the revelation from Above does not bring about an internal change within the recipient, the levels and gradations within the system of the recipient remain unaltered, and are therefore respected, as it were, by the light which shines into the system. The fundamental hierarchy remains: what is lofty is lofty, and what is low remains low. True, even the lowest levels gain from the revelation of Divine light, but they do not undergo fundamental change. This indicates that the Divine light that is being revealed reflects a level of G‑dliness that relates to the limits of the created beings.

With regard to the second motif, what is fundamentally important is the recognition of G‑dliness by the created beings on the lower planes of existence. Through that recognition, they transcend their own identity and become subsumed within the transcendent G‑dliness they recognize, i.e., a level of G‑dly light that reflects His infinity.

See also Toras Chayim, loc. cit., which states that the Beis HaMikdash revealed the motif, “Last in action, [but] first in thought” (see footnote 65).

This also explains why the Sanctuary served as only a temporary dwelling for G‑d, while the Beis HaMikdash served as a permanent dwelling (see footnotes 51–52). When the revelation is only drawn down from Above, it does not permeate the internal makeup of the recipient to a great degree. (See Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 2c-d, which states that when an arousal from Above comes on its own initiative and is not immediately followed by man’s Divine service, i.e., his seeking to ascend from below upward, the feelings it generates will not endure.)

Tanya, ch. 36.

Torah Or, loc. cit. Toras Chayim, loc. cit., uses the expression “resembling the future era.” See also Tanya, loc. cit., which after stating that the ultimate revelation will come in the Era of Mashiach, states that, in microcosm, this was revealed at the time of the Giving of the Torah.

As will be explained, the Beis HaMikdash reflected how entities which are fit to be mediums for G‑dliness realized their purpose. While this is a lofty purpose, it is not G‑d’s ultimate intent.

Cited in the maamar entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, and the maamar entitled Shokav Amudei Sheish 5702, sec. 19.

The Rebbe is referring to a “true desire,” not something wanted for a reason, but something wanted solely because it is wanted. When speaking about an action that is motivated by logic, it is relevant to ask why it was performed, for what reason did the person act as he did. When speaking about a true desire, there is no room for questions; he did so because he wanted to.

We expect there to be a reason for the existence of every created being. Since it did not exist previously and was created, it is logical that it was brought into being for a purpose, a reason that makes sense.

What being has no purpose for its existence, needs no reason to be? Only G‑d. His existence transcends the concept of purpose. He simply is. He was, and He will be. His existence is not brought into being from nothingness, but rather His is true existence, for He exists independently, without a cause or reason for being. No thought, logic, or rationale can describe His Essence (see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1227, et al.). Conversely, something that can be described with a reason does not relate to His Essence.

G‑d invested a dimension of His genuine being, as it were, into the creation, as Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 1:1) states, “From the truth of His Being came into existence all the beings.” This is what our Sages mean by saying He “desired” creation, i.e., He invested something which is not reasonable or logical, an aspect that does not have a purpose or a cause, a dimension of the essence of His Being, into the creation. Accordingly, there are elements of our existence that do not make sense. It is precisely these elements that reflect the world’s essential source.

Although the Zohar and the Etz Chayim (as mentioned in footnote 60) give reasons for the creation of the world, these reasons do not represent G‑d’s ultimate motivation for creation. They are merely preparatory steps necessary to complete the purpose of a dwelling in the lower realms. For the concept of a dwelling is that not only is the entire essence found within it, but moreover, that the essence is found there in a revealed manner. (See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1054, where this concept is explained at length.)

The explanations to follow in the main text, this footnote, and those that follows are dependent on two concepts: Atzmus, “G‑d’s Essence,” and gilui, pl. giluyim, “revelation,” or “pattern of revelation.”

There is no way to define Atzmus. G‑d simply is. That cannot be said of any entity other than Him. That is a core principle of Jewish faith: that all existence was created yesh mei’ayin, something from nothing, for it involves bringing into being entities that are yesh – whose existence we can see, feel, or access – from the state of non-being that existed before creation. That state is referred to as ayin, “nothingness,” or he’eder, “non-being.”

Since He simply is, above our entire framework of existence and knowledge, there is no way we – or any other being, even a spiritual being on the loftiest level – can know or define Him. All definitions stem from the perspective of created beings who were brought into existence within the context of an existing framework of reference and interpret everything according to it. Since He is the Creator, existing before – not only chronologically before, but on a different plane – that framework, He transcends it. Indeed, transcendence is an inadequate description of His Essence, because transcendence implies some degree of relation – albeit in a negative sense – to that framework of reference.

Accordingly, it is said, atzmus eino misgaleh, “G‑d’s Essence never reveals itself.” Gilui, revelation, refers to the means through which one entity projects itself beyond its own realm and makes itself known to another entity. It implies existing within a framework of reference and adapting oneself so that one can be perceived by another entity within that framework. This cannot be said of G‑d’s Essence.

Nevertheless, as explained in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 239ff. (translated in Vol. 1 of this series, p. 574ff.) since G‑d’s Essence is not bound by any limitations, Heaven forbid, we cannot say that His Essence cannot be revealed, for that would constrict Him. Certainly, He can be revealed. However, when His Essence extends itself into the framework of revealed existence, it redefines those realms. For example, wisdom – even the perfect wisdom of Atzilus – is a separate entity which bonds with G‑d and knows Him. As such, it cannot know G‑d’s Essence. However, when G‑d’s Essence is revealed in wisdom, wisdom becomes redefined as an expression of G‑dliness and radiates His essential nature, expressing it within the context of wisdom.

As stated above, the concept of a dwelling for G‑d’s Essence is that not only is His Essence found within it, but that His Essence is found there in a revealed manner. For G‑d’s Essence to be revealed, it is necessary that G‑d’s essential desire for creation be filtered through motifs associated with revelation, for Him “to be generous with His created beings” and “so that they recognize His greatness.” For the knowledge and recognition of G‑d that come as a result of these motifs are preparatory steps for the revelation of G‑d’s Essence.

[To cite a parallel: Man’s love and fear of G‑d reflect the revealed powers of the soul. As such, they are removed from the essence of the soul and are not fit mediums for the revelation of G‑d’s Essence. Nevertheless, they are referred to as “the ways of G‑d,” because they enable G‑d’s Essence to be revealed through the actual performance of the mitzvos (Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 3, p. 956). Consult that text.

To citeanother example: Bringing the world into existence is possible only through the creative potential of G‑d’s Essence. Nevertheless, the medium which actually brings the world into being is G‑d’s light, as it is enclothed in the vessels (keilim) (Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 20, p. 130b). Similarly, G‑d’s essential desire is expressed through the light and the keilim, which are mediums for the revelation of G‑dliness, for the fulfillment of the purpose of “a dwelling in the lower worlds,” a dwelling for His Essence, comes through (the preparatory phases of) G‑d wishing “to be generous with His created beings” (which is brought into fulfillment by G‑d’s light) and “so that they recognize His greatness” (which is brought into fulfillment by the keilim).]

It is possible to explain that this pattern was revealed in the order of the indwelling of G‑d’s presence. First, His presence was manifest in the Sanctuary which reflected His light, and then in the Beis HaMikdash (built by Shlomoh) which reflected the keilim. Ultimately, the Beis HaMikdash to be built in the future will be a dwelling for His Essence.

The channels of revelation in and of themselves are not appropriate conduits for the revelation of G‑d’s Essence. Accordingly, they existed in a manner that did not communicate His Essence. However, ultimately, they will serve as conduits enabling His Essence to be known.

Generally, we assume that a desire that does not have a reason is lower than something that a person does because he understands the value of his action. Nevertheless, when speaking of G‑d’s desire, this does not apply. Instead, His desire reflects the innermost aspect of His Being, the dimension that entirely transcends intellect.

These concepts are also reflected in our Divine service. If a reason was the sole motivation for the world’s creation, the creation itself would have some importance, for it is the medium that fulfills G‑d’s intent. As such, a person whose Divine service brings this intent to fruition would also deserve a certain degree of prominence, for it is his service that enables G‑d’s purpose to be fulfilled.

However, when considering the true motivation for creation – that it is only because “it arose in His will” and “He desired it” – it follows that the creation has no inherent relationship with Him, nor is it a matter of consequence, for its entire existence is merely that G‑d desired it.

Accordingly, there is no basis for a person to feel pride in his Divine service. To explain:

Were there to be an inherent purpose or reason for the creation, the world and the person carrying out that purpose would have integral value and deserve recognition, since they are the entities that bring that purpose to fulfillment. The purpose endows intrinsic importance and worth to those who endeavor to make it manifest.

Since, however, the world came about only because of G‑d’s desire which is not motivated by a reason, then there can be no reason for a person to attach any importance to his accomplishment of that desire. For even when the desire is brought to fruition, since the creation has no inherent purpose in and of itself, the person who helped accomplish it has no basis to be proud. All he did was carry out a desire, something that has no inherent value.

Thus, making a dwelling for Him specifically involves utterly negating and nullifying the feeling of one’s own importance. (A person should not think, “I am important because I have fulfilled G‑d’s intent.”) For the entire concept of a dwelling in the lower realms is not something that is necessary in and of itself. It is only the subject of His desire. See also footnote 98.

From the fact that the intent for the dwelling in the lower realms stems from G‑d’s Essence that is above all revealed levels – for even the light which is a revelation coming from His Essence is for the sake of this intent (see the maamar entitled ViAsisa Chag Shavuos, 5673, the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 1, p. 247ff. and the maamar entitled Anochi Havayah E-lokecha, 5703, sec. 3) – it can also be understood that it was G‑d’s will and His choice that motivated His desire, not a logical reason, for His Essence cannot be characterized by any description, nor does He have tendencies of any sort. Thus, no achievement man realizes has any importance or meaning in and of itself. However, when man furthers the fulfillment of G‑d’s essential desire, his actions are of consequence in that they bring about a connection to G‑d’s Essence, the source of that desire.

Not only is the explanation that G‑d “desired” a dwelling unnecessary to account for the manifestation of His presence in these structures, since there is a reason for this manifestation, i.e., these structures conveyed a virtue that we can understand, the very fact that they express a virtue and reflect a level of perfection indicates that they cannot fulfill the intent of G‑d’s desire – a dwelling for Him. Since the dwelling is intended for His Essence, as it were, the appreciation of the virtue and the level of perfection run contrary, as it were, to the revelation of His Essence (see the preceding notes).

The intent is that any intellectually sound reason, by definition has a limited scope, for intellect must have bounds. As such, a purpose connected with such a reason is not an appropriate conduit for G‑d’s Essence.

Ch. 36.

Literally, “the other side,” a Kabbalistic term for the realm of evil.

Cf. Yeshayahu 47:8, 10; Tzephaniah 2:15.

G‑d’s Essence is described as the Yesh HaAmiti, the True Being, for in truth, He is the only entity Who “is” in an absolute sense. To quote Rav Yosef Albo (Sefer HaIkarim, Maamar Sheni, ch. 1.): “His existence must be, i.e., His existence is from Himself and is not the result of any other cause which preceded it.” Since our material world is rooted in G‑d’s Essence, there is the possibility for misconception and for the created beings in our material world to imagine that they exist independently and perceive their own selfhood. Those perceptions are fundamentally false. Nevertheless, the possibility for them to have a sense of individual identity stems from the fact that His Essence is the source of their being. See Basi LeGani, 5711, sec. 4 (translated in Lessons in Sefer HaMaamarim, Vol. 1).

The forces of kelipah pervert and magnify the above misconception. Not only do they encourage a perception of selfhood, they push it to the extreme so that one thinks, “I am; there is nothing else but me.”

Certainly, there is a spark of G‑dliness in every element of existence. Indeed, without that spark of G‑dliness, the entity could not continue to exist (Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 1). Nevertheless, since our world is governed by the forces of kelipah, the G‑dliness invested in these entities is not evident, nor can it be revealed in a natural manner. To borrow an analogy from the laws of kashrus (Tur, Yoreh Deah 72, et al.), the condition of the G‑dly spark present in the beings of this world can be described with the expression chatichah naaseh neveilah, meaning that the substance, though originally kosher, through its contact with an unkosher substance is now considered as carrion. As the sichah proceeds to explain, it is only through the Divine service of the Jewish people – utilizing the essential power that G‑d granted them – that it is possible to bring about a new development and give expression to the G‑dliness within our world.

The unique dimension invested in our world – that its existence is rooted in G‑d’s Essence – is fundamentally positive and will remain. The perception that “I am; there is nothing else but me,” is a perversion stemming from the forces of kelipah and must be uprooted entirely.

On this basis, we can understand our Sages’ statement (Shabbos 119b, the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch 268:1), “Whenever [a person] prays on Friday night and recites the passage Vaychulu, the Torah considers it as if he becomes a partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the work of creation.”

The Chidushei Aggados of the Maharsha (loc. cit.) interprets this passage as follows, “By reciting Vaychulu, [the person] gives testimony about [G‑d’s] work of creation” – see the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:12 – by doing so, “he becomes the partner of the Holy One, blessed be He, because without that person’s testimony, [G‑d’s] work [of creation] would not be known.”

On the surface, explanation is necessary: A person through his testimony makes known G‑d’s work of creation, but he does not add anything to the actual task of creation. How can he justly be called a partner to the Holy One, blessed be He, who created all existence?

Based on the above explanations, this question can be resolved. For a created being to “recognize G‑d’s greatness” [– the term “greatness” refers to the task of creation (Berachos 58a) –] it is necessary for him to bring about an entirely new development, one equal to G‑d’s creation of something from nothing. For man’s recognition of the G‑dliness present within the world – despite the forces of kelipah that dominate it – is as radical a change as G‑d’s creation of the world from absolute nothingness.

[In this context, a halachic comparison can be made. In Jewish law, there are two types of witnesses: a) eidei birur, witnesses who clarify the nature of a situation, for example, witnesses who testify in court, describing the nature of the business relationship, and b) eidei kiyum, witnesses who establish the halachic status of a person or object, for example, witnesses who observe the consecration of a woman establish the bond between the couple (see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 19, p. 188ff., and the sources cited there).

Similarly, in this context, by reciting Vaychulu, the Jews serve as eidei kiyum (witnesses who testify regarding the authenticity of a legal document.* Without their testimony, the document would have no power). Through their testimony, these witnesses establish the authenticity of the legal document and cause it to be considered a significant entity.]

The reason our Sages use the expression, “the Torah considers it** as if he becomes a partner” – an expression that implies that the person’s role is not entirely equal to G‑d’s – and not “becomes a partner,” is because the potential to recognize G‑dliness in a world which opposes it comes from G‑d’s Essence (as will be explained later in the main text and in footnote 104) and thus does not stem from the person’s own capabilities.

There is another concept implied. The kelipos and the sitra achra are entities without substance, non-beings (מְצִיאוֹת דְּהָעֵדֶר, metzius de’header) (Toras Sholom, p. 134ff.).*** Thus, through the Divine service of subduing the sitra achra and transforming the darkness to light, a new development is brought about within the creation. Entities that are fundamentally non-beings are transformed into entities of substance.

On this basis, we can appreciate the expression “partner in the work of creation,” which implies that the person’s activities have an effect on the creation itself (affecting the very existence of heaven and earth).

* There is a difference of opinion among the Acharonim if witnesses who validate a legal document function as eidei birur or eidei kiyum in the context of the above discussion. Although they are referred to as eidei kiyum, there are grounds to consider them eidei birur since they verify the authenticity of the witnesses’ signatures. On the other hand, since without their testimony, the legal document does not have any power, they can be viewed as eidei kiyum.

** Although the expression, maaleh alav hakasuv is often translated simply as “is considered,” we have chosen to translate the term as “the Torah considers it,” because, as stated in the body of the footnote, the power for the Jews to acknowledge the G‑dliness invested in the world is not their own, but imparted to them by G‑d. The wording maaleh alav hakasuv literally means “the Torah elevates him.” Our Sages’ expression could be interpreted as implying that the Torah serves as the conduit through which G‑d invests this power in the Jewish people. See a similar explanation in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 39, p. 363.

*** In Toras Sholom, loc. cit., the concept of metzius de’header is identified with the power in the forces of evil that brings about challenges. Chassidus (Toras Menachem, Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, Vol. 2, p. 191, et al.) explains the nature of that power by citing Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Vayeira, sec. 22, which states that to prevent Avraham from going to Mt. Moriah to offer Yitzchak as a sacrifice, the Satan transformed himself into a great river. Avraham descended into the water and proceeded until it reached his neck. At that time, Avraham lifted his eyes heavenward and called out to G‑d. Immediately thereafter, the river dried up and Avraham and Yitzchak found themselves on dry land. Similarly, the existence of all entities stemming from kelipah appears formidable but, ultimately, they will cease to be.

The phrase (Iyov 14:15), “You (G‑d) desire the work of Your hands,” is applied (see Shmos Rabbah 36:4, Vayikra Rabbah 31: 3) to G‑d’s desire for man to transform the nature of this world and make it a dwelling for G‑dliness.

True, Kesubos 5a applies the expression, “The deeds of the righteous are greater than the making of heaven and earth” to the construction of the Sanctuary and the Beis HaMikdash. The maamar entitled Gedolim Maaseh Tzaddkim, 5685, sec. 7, that focuses on that verse, explains that the virtue of the deeds of the righteous is reflected in the new development brought about by the nullification of yesh (self-conscious existence) to ayin (nothingness). [See also Shmos Rabbah (loc. cit.) which explains that the expression, “You desire the work of Your hands,” is referring to the service in the Sanctuary.]

Nevertheless, since the holiness drawn down in the Sanctuary and the Beis HaMikdash does not reach the lowest levels of existence themselves – i.e., those which are “filled with the kelipos and the sitra achra” – building these structures cannot be considered as an entirely new development. [To cite a parallel, the maamar entitled Tiku, 5667 (in the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666; see also the maamar entitled Acharei, 5666, loc. cit.,), explains that the task of refinement carried out through drawing down Divine light from Above cannot truly be considered as a new development, since the refinement results from Divine light and is thus, not man’s achievement.] In a similar way, the service in the Sanctuary and the Beis HaMikdash cannot be considered the ultimate expression of “the deeds of the righteous” (man’s Divine service). That will not come until the Jews’ Divine service during the exile will bear fruit with the construction of the Third Beis HaMikdash.

See also Rashi’s commentary to Shmos 15:17, “The Sanctuary of G‑d, established by Your hands,” which notes that the phrase uses the plural “hands” and states, “When will G‑d’s Sanctuary be built with two hands?... In the future (i.e., the Era of the Redemption).” And Kesubos, loc. cit., derives the concept that “the deeds of the righteous are greater” from this prooftext. Based on this explanation, it follows that the verse refers to the third Beis HaMikdash.

Although this dwelling is fashioned only through man’s Divine service, carrying it out should not engender any feelings of self-importance (see footnote 87). A parallel can be drawn to the advantage possessed by “a simple servant” over “a faithful servant,” as described in the maamar entitled Acharei, 5666. Although the service of a simple servant is an entirely new development which is achieved through his own initiative, his work is nevertheless identified as his master’s (and indeed, this identification is what makes this dynamic possible). For a (simple) servant does not view himself as an independent entity at all, as explained at length in that source.

Furthermore, from the fact that the dwelling is being established for G‑d’s Essence, as explained in footnote 101, we can appreciate that the bittul (self-nullification) required is of a more consummate level than the bittul involved in Divine service that is motivated by the revealed levels of G‑dliness. The bittul involved in Divine service that is motivated by the revealed levels of G‑dliness is incomplete, as reflected by the statement (cf. Zohar, Vol. I, p. 11b), “Everything before Him is as nothing,” i.e., because of one’s awareness of G‑d’s greatness, one considers oneself as nothing. This implies that the person retains a certain vestige of self; for indeed, it is he who perceives G‑d’s greatness and, as result of that perception, concedes his self-importance. The bittul evoked by G‑d’s Essence, by contrast, is complete and all-encompassing, as intimated by the verse (Devarim 4:39), “There is nothing else,” i.e., one is subsumed in the awareness that there is no existence whatsoever apart from G‑d (the maamar entitled U’Lekachtem Lachem, 5661, and the maamar entitled Im Bechukosai, 5667).

For there is no reason to make a dwelling for G‑d in a place that is entirely unsuitable for that purpose.

The creation of the lower realms of existence was not motivated by a reason. [As explained at the beginning of the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, and the maamar entitled Shokav, 5702, the reasons mentioned by the Zohar and Etz Chayim do not necessitate the creation of the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah, and certainly do not necessitate the creation of our material world.]

The rationales given by the Zohar and Etz Chayim involve the recognition of G‑dliness. However, what characterizes the created beings within the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah, and certainly within our material world, is the concealment of G‑dliness and the feeling of yeshus, self-awareness, that arise from it. These characteristics run contrary to the recognition of G‑dliness. Hence, the creation of these realms could not be motivated by those rationales.

Just as the creation of these realms was not motivated by these rationales, the true aspect of the revelation of G‑dliness in these realms does not stem from them. Since the lower realms were not brought into being because of the rationales stemming from the revealed levels of G‑dliness, the revelation of G‑dliness in these realms does not stem from them. A world full of kelipah exists in contradiction to these revealed levels of G‑dliness. Hence, in and of themselves, cannot be expressed in the lower dimensions of such a world.

On this basis, we can appreciate why (as an initial preference) the Beis HaMikdash had to be built from stone. The new development of the Beis HaMikdash (that made it superior to the Sanctuary) was that the entities of the lower realms became vessels for G‑dliness, as explained in sec. 8. Since bricks are lower than stones, as explained in sec. 3, seemingly, the Beis HaMikdash should have been built with bricks rather than stones, precisely because bricks are on a lower level than stones. Nevertheless, this was not done because the revelation of the Beis HaMikdash could not penetrate to the bricks, since, as explained above, bricks represent the side of impurity. (See Tanya, ch. 7, which states that when a person eats without an intent to elevate the food, his eating “is not better... [than the] kelipos and the sitra achra…, which dominate this world... that is primarily – indeed, [it could be said] entirely evil,” i.e., kelipah permeates the framework of this world and man’s makeup; therefore, bricks that are made by man are unfit for the Beis HaMikdash.)

True, if there were no stones available, the Beis HaMikdash could be built with bricks (Rambam, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, 1:8). However, such a building and the G‑dliness drawn down within it would relate to the level of bricks that resemble stone. (As the passage from Tanya cited previously continues, in kelipas nogah, there is “a small amount of good mixed together with it.”)

Note the explanation in the series of maamarim entitled Matzah Zu, 5640, sec. 60, with regard to the advantage of the Chanukah lamps (which we are commanded to place at the entrance to our homes, on the outside) over the study of the Torah; i.e., the Chanukah lamps elevate the public domain.

True, with regard to Torah study, it is also said (Devarim 6:7), “And you shall speak of them ... when you walk on the way,” i.e., that the effect of the words of the Torah are not confined to the realms of holiness and can be extended into the public domain. Nevertheless, even in such a situation, Torah study does not draw down light into the public domain, the “separate mountains” (a Kabbalistic term connoting the separation that characterizes our world, cf. Tanya, end of ch. 33), to the same extent as do the Chanukah lamps. As explained in the above source, the rationale for the distinction is that the obligation to speak the words of Torah “when you walk on the way” comes in continuation – and thus resembles – the obligation to speak words of Torah when “you sit in your home,” while Chanukah lights were ordained to shine light into the public domain. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 223ff.

To explain the parallel to the point mentioned above: Though a person might study Torah in the public domain, he is not elevating the public domain itself. Similarly, the fact that, if no stones are available, the Beis HaMikdash could be built with bricks does not mean that bricks could become the “building blocks” for the Beis HaMikdash.

Moreover, the dwelling established in the lower worlds is a dwelling for G‑d’s Essence. As explained in several sources, just as a person’s entire essence is manifest in his home, so too, in the analogue, in our world, G‑d’s dwelling, His entire essence is found.

Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 20 (p. 130b).

See Hayom Yom, entry 27 Elul, which states, “The nation of Israel, even as it exists on this earthly plane, is connected with the one G‑d. G‑d creates materiality out of spirituality, and the people of Israel make spirituality out of materiality.”

See also the maamar entitled Tiku, 5667. That source states that the souls on this physical plane – which correspond to the level of a simple servant described above in footnote 98 – possess the power to refine the inherent material obsession that characterizes the animal soul, a task which is an entirely new development, equivalent to the creation of something from nothing stemming from the power of G‑d’s Essence which has the potential to create being from nothingness. Consult that source.

See Rashi, Bereishis 11:3. (Note also Rashi, Shmos 5:7.) See also Torah Or, p. 77c ff.

Bereishis 11:3. As stated in many sources (see those mentioned in footnote 24, Or HaTorah, Parshas Shmos, p. 24, and the maamar entitled Zos Chanukas, 5640, ch. 14), the subjugation of the Jewish people in the Egyptian exile and their efforts in making bricks corrected the sin of making bricks for the Tower of Bavel.

Torah Or, loc. cit.

The concept referred to is relevant with regard to the laws of ritual purity and impurity. See Tosafos (Pesachim 30b, entry HaTorah; Zevachim, 96a, entry Ela); see also Rambam, Hilchos Keilim 1:6, 13; 15:1, et al.

Similar concepts apply with regard to bricks. They are also considered as new entities, entirely different from their previous state.

These concepts can also be applied with regard to man who creates this dwelling for G‑d. Since “his foundation is from earth” (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur liturgy), he also resembles an earthenware utensil. Accordingly, there is no way of correcting his material inclination and his tendencies toward undesirable character traits – which he possesses to a greater extent than animals – that stem from the makeup of his body (Kuntres U’Mayon, Discourse 15, ch. 2). They must be consumed by fire, nullifying his yeshus (self-consciousness) entirely.

A parallel can be made to the laws of kashering an earthenware utensil. Boiling in hot water is not sufficient. It must be burned in fire. See the maamar entitled VeAfu (Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 48c).

See the sources mentioned in note 35.

The beginning of the maamar entitled Kol Dodi 5709, Sefer HaMaamarim 5709, p. 107. See Bereishis Rabbah 16:4.

Tanya, beginning of ch. 37.

The Hebrew for bricks, leveinim, and clarification, libun, share the same root letters. The exact labor of clarifying Torah Law in the present age is the spiritual parallel of the Jews’ work to make bricks during the Egyptian exile.

Raaya Mehemna (Zohar, Vol. III, p. 153a), et al., quoted and explained in Torah Or, Toras Chayim, and Or HaTorah, the beginning of Parshas Shmos.

The clarification of Torah law parallels the two thrusts reflected in making bricks:

a) the clarification of the laws comes through the removal and the weakening of the power of kelipah which veils and conceals the laws (see Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 26, p. 144b ff.);

b) through the clarification of Torah law, new Torah concepts are developed (see Tanya, loc. cit.; the maamarim entitled Ashreichem Yisrael and Lech Lecha, 5667).

The statement in the main text is clarifying the nature of our Divine service in the present era. On one hand, it is necessary to involve oneself with the lowest dimensions of material existence, the parallel to making bricks. On the other hand, efforts must be devoted to Torah study because such study empowers a person to succeed in that task of refinement. Moreover, by confronting the potential for evil in its source, i.e., as it exists in Torah, a person can carry out the refinement on that plane and preclude the necessity of facing the manifestation of these negative elements of existence in actual fact.

Michah 7:15, cited in Torah Or, loc. cit. It could be said that Torah Or is referring to the “wonders of the Torah,” the mystic truths of pnimiyus haTorah that transcend human knowledge.

See Tanya, ch. 36; Zohar, Vol. III, p. 125a (note Zohar, Vol. I, p. 139a); Rambam, the conclusion of Hilchos Melachim; Avodas HaKodesh, Vol. II, ch. 39.

פרשתנו א, יד.

סוטה יא, ב.

שמות רבה פ״א, יא. וראה חדושי אגדות מהרש״א בסוטה שם, שמפרש כן גם בגמרא.

חדושי אגדות שם.

להעיר מפרש״י משפטים (כד, יו״ד): "שהיו משועבדים במעשה לבנים".

פרשתנו ה, א ואילך.

במדבר רבה פט״ו, כ. תנחומא בהעלותך יג. תנחומא באבער שם כג. וראה גם שמות רבה שם.

פרשתנו א, יג.

ראה גם סוטה שם, ריש ע״ב.

ראה גם שם, א.

אבל לא כל היום ממש – שהרי חלק מהיום בנו את הערים*, שגם זה נכלל בהעבודה "בחומר ובלבנים" (ראה מהרש״א שם: שבתחלה בנו לו ערים). ואולי יש לומר: בחומר (לעשות ממנו לבנים) ובלבנים (לבנות מהם ערים).

ברמב״ן (א, יא) ואור החיים (שם, יד), שבנין הערים אינו נכלל בהעבודה "בחומר ובלבנים", ומפרשים שבתחלה היו בונים הערים ואחר כך הוסיפו עליהם עשיית הלבנים. אבל פשטות הלשון בגמרא ומדרש שם משמע כנ״ל. וראה אור החיים (שם, יא): "ולדבריהם ז״ל צריך לומר כי קדמו דברים ("פה רך") לשרי מסים".

*) ואין לומר שבנין הערים היה משחשיכה – כי (א) רק "בכל עבודה בשדה" היה לאחר "שבאין לנוח לערב לבתיהן" (תנחומא ויצא ט), (ב) לפי זה נמצא שבנין הערים – מלאכה עיקרית – לא נמנית כלל בפּסוק "וימררו את חייהם״ (ורק – נכלל (בדרך אגב) ב״את כל עבודתם״)!

להעיר משמות רבה שם, יב: אם אתם הולכים לישן בבתיכם .. אין אתם משלימים את הסכום שלכם.

בראשית רבה פכ״ז, ב. תנחומא ויצא, ט.

במצרים כפשוטו, ובמצרים וגלות ויציאת מצרים שבעבודת כל אחד ואחד מבני ישראל, ש״בכל יום ויום חייב לראות עצמו כאילו הוא יצא היום ממצרים״ (תניא ריש פרק מ״ז – ראה שם ביאורו).

ראה על דרך זה לקוטי שיחות ח״ג ע׳ 848 ואילך.

כנאמר על התורה ומצוות כי הם חיינו. וראה קונטרס ומעין מאמר ז. ו״לכן נוגע מאד הענינים שעוסקים בהם, מפני שבכל דבר ודבר שהאדם פועל ועושה מכניס בזה כחות אלקית" (ד״ה בשעה שהקדימו תער״ב פ״ב). וראה גם לקוטי שיחות שם הערה 22.

ראה תניא פ״ט, יב ועוד.

תהלים מח, ב. וראה רשימות הצמח צדק שם.

דכל המצירים נקראו על שם מצרים (ראה בראשית רבה פט״ז, ד).

ראה בארוכה ד״ה והי׳ הנשאר בציון תרצ״א פ״ב וג׳. ד״ה אור לי״ד ש״ת פ״ג. ובכ״מ.

וכלשון ספר יצירה (פ״ד בסופו) ב׳ אבנים בונות ב׳ בתים וכו׳ – ולהעיר מנגעים פי״ב, מ״ב.

ובפרט בית המקדש – השלימות ד״עיר אלקינו״ (ירושלים) – שעיקרו היה אבנים, כדלקמן סעיף ה׳ וסעיף ח׳.

זח״ב קמח, ב. וביהל אור ע׳ שנח, שהוא על דרך שאמרו רז״ל (מדרש הגדול) על הפסוק (בראשית ה, ג) שמקודם היו כקופין.

נח (יא, ג) וראה שער הפסוקים ריש פ׳ שמות. לקוטי תורה לג׳ פרשיות על הפסוק (עב, ג ואילך – אור התורה נח כרך ג תרסב, א ואילך. שם כרך ו' תתרסו, א ואילך).

החילוק בין ב׳ האופנים – ראה לקוטי שיחות ח״ג ע׳ 907. 932.

היפך בנין ירושלים (ראה רש״י תולדות כה, כג – ממגילה ו, א. וראה גם זח״ב רלו, א. רמ, א. עיין שם).

תורה אור עז, ג. לקוטי תורה לג׳ פרשיות שם. וראה גם ד״ה והי׳ הנשאר שם פ״ז.

ד״ה והי׳ הנשאר שם. וראה גם תורה אור שם. לקוטי תורה לג׳ פרשיות שם.

רמב״ם הלכות בית הבחירה פ"א ה"ח.

עקב ח, ט.

ראה תורה אור שם.

מגן אברהם אורח חיים סימן קל״א סק״כ.

רש״י ד״ה לא אסרה תורה (מגילה כב, ב). הרמב״ם (הלכות עבודה זרה פ״ו ה״ו ואילך, וראה כסף משנה שם) מפרש הטעם מפני שזהו דרך עובדי עבודה זרה. ולכאורה גם בזה יש לפרש דהא שעשו כן לעבודה זרה הוא מפני שהייתה עבודה בקודש [ועל דרך שמצינו במצבה (שקדמה לדין אבן משכית ברמב״ם שם) – דאהובה לאבות (ספרי שופטים טז, כב) דיש לומר דמפני זה עשאוה חק לעבודה זרה (ראה פרש״י שם. ולהעיר מאור התורה ויצא קצח, א ואילך)] אף שבית המקדש (שבו רצפת אבנים) נבנה זמן רב לאחרי איסור אבן משכית.

ראה פרדס בשער ערכי הכנויים ערך לבינה (הובא באור התורה שמות ע׳ כד. זאת חנוכת תר״מ ספי״ד. וראה גם ד״ה והי׳ הנשאר שם ספ״ז): לבינה הוא מסטרא דמסאבותא.

עבודה זרה מו, א (וראה גם סוטה מז, א – בכמה דפוסים נשמט ע״י הצנזור) – הובא במקומות שבהערה שלפנ״ז. וראה רש״י (עבודה זרה) שם – לפי שהוא בידי אדם, משא״כ אבני הר שנדלדלו שאין בהן תפיסת ידי אדם. (עיין שם. ולהעיר ממה שכתוב (איכה ג, לח) מפּי עליון לא תצא הרעות).

ואפילו עבירה קלה של דברי סופרים – נפרד בה מיחודו ואחדותו כמו בעבודה זרה ממש בשעת מעשה (ראה תניא פכ״ד, כה).

ראה גם לקוטי תורה לג׳ פרשיות שם.

נח יא, ג.

להעיר מסתרי תורה בזח״א עה, א; וממאמר רז״ל (עירובין ו, א. ושם נסמן) בקעה מצא וגדר בה גדר. וראה ד״ה והי׳ הנשאר שם פ״ז, שבקעה הוא ענין ביקוע ופירוד.

כן הובא בכמה מקומות בדא״ח. וכן הוא בשל״ה בית חכמה (טז, ב) ובית הגדול (לו, ריש ע״א). ובסנהדרין כד, א (וכן הוא בשל״ה שער הגדול (לה, ב)): זה תלמודה של בבל.

על דרך המבואר באגרת התשובה סוף פ״ו.

ועל דרך שמצינו (הלכות תלמוד תורה לאדמו״ר הזקן פ״ד סוף ס״ג) שתורה ומצוות דרשע קודם שעשה תשובה מוסיפים כח בקליפות.

תנחומא נשא טז. וראה גם במדבר רבה פי״ג, ו.

כן היה מוסיף (פעמים רבות) כ״ק אדמו״ר (מהורש״ב) נ״ע – נתבאר בלקוטי שיחות חי״ט ע׳ 27 ואילך.

שנת תקע״ג – מוצש״ק פ׳ שמות.

תניא פל״ו.

להעיר מ״כל דבר שבחובה אין בא אלא מן החולין" (מנחות פב, א).

ראה שיר השירים רבה פ״א, טז (ג). וכמו שכתוב (שמואל ב׳ ז, ו) ואהיה מתהלך באהל גו׳ (תורה אור ריש פרשת ויגש).

ראה שיר השירים רבה שם. וכמו שכתוב (תהלים קלב, יד) זאת מנוחתי עדי עד (תורה אור שם).

ואסור לעשות בו עץ בולט (רמב״ם הלכות בית הבחירה פ״א ה״ט (וגם הראב״ד סבירא ליה כן – ראה כסף משנה שם). חינוך מצוה תצב – הובאו בתורה אור שם).

ומה שבנין בית המקדש היה מאבנים ולא מלבנים שהם ״תחתון״ יותר – ראה להלן הערה עו.

וכמבואר בתורה אור שם, תורת חיים ד״ה ויגש פ״ח וסדור כא, ב.

– ובלקוטי תורה ברכה צט, ד וב"מאמרי אדה״ז – הנחות הר״פ" ע׳ פא, מבואר מעלה זו גם בנוגע למשכן שילה, לפי שהכתלים* שבו היו מאבנים. עיי״ש.

*) בלקוטי תורה שם: היריעות. והוא טעות הדפוס (הערות כ״ק אדמו״ר (מהורש״ב) נ״ע – נדפסו בסוף ספר לקוטי תורה).

כדמוכח ממקומות המסומנים בהערה ו.

נשא ה, יז.

ראה תורה אור (ד״ה אנכי מגן לך) יב, א. ובהגהות על זה בלקוטי תורה לג׳ פרשיות (פח, א. אוה״ת לך (כרך ד) תרצג, א ואילך).

בבא מציעא פו, ב. וראה לקוטי שיחות ח״א ע׳ 28.

ויש לומר שזהו ב׳ הענינים "כדי להטיב לברואיו ויכירו גדולתו כו׳" (עץ חיים שער הכללים בתחלתו). ויש לומר שזהו החידוש ד"יכירו גדולתו" על "בגין דישתמודעון ליה" (שבזהר פ׳ בא מב, ב), שהכוונה ב"בגין דישתמודעון ליה" (דמשמע (גם) בעל כרחו) – הוא שיהיה גילוי אלקותו יתברך

(וכדאיתא בעץ חיים בתחלתו (ושער ההקדמות הקדמה ג׳) "שיתגלו שלימות כחותיו כו׳" וממה שכתוב בעץ חיים שם "וכבר נתבאר טעם זה בספר הזהר .. וגם בפ׳ בא כו׳", מובן שבכללות הוא ענין אחד עם "בגין דישתמודעון ליה". וראה גם ד״ה יו״ט של ר״ה תרס״ו וד״ה שוקיו עמודי שש תש״ב פי״ח, אשר ענין "יתגלו כו' " הוא פירוש במאמר הזהר "בגין כו' ")

אבל ענינו של המקבל רצונו וכו' אינו נוגע בזה. משא״כ הכוונה ב״לברואיו ויכירו כו' " הוא – שהנבראים יכירו את גדולתו יתברך ויזכו להיות מרכבה כו'.

ועל פי זה יובן מה שהטעם בעץ חיים ושער ההקדמות שם הוא בנוגע לכללות ההתהוות, ואילו בשער הכללים שם "האציל נקודה א' הכלולה מי׳ (והם י׳ ספירות של העקודים שהיו בכלי א׳)" – כי טעם זה ד"יכירו גדולתו כו׳" נשלם בהאצלת בחינת עקודים דוקא (ולא בהבחינות שלמעלה מזה) לפי שבעקודים הוא התחלת הכלים (ד״ה השם נפשנו בחיים תשכ״ד. ועיין המשך תער״ב ח״ב ע׳ א׳קיט).

ספר מלחמות השם מאמר ו׳ ספט״ו – הובא ב״קיצורים והערות לתניא" ע׳ קב.

וזהו החידוש שב״סוף מעשה במחשבה תחלה״ על ״נעוץ תחלתן בסופן״: "סופן" הכוונה לסיום וגמר ההשפעה, ובחינה זו נעוצה ב"תחלתן" – תחלת וראשית ההשפעה (וכנ״ל בפנים, שע״י המשכת האור עד למטה מטה – "סופן", מתגלה תוקפו הבלתי מוגבל), משא״כ "סוף מעשה" הוא ענין קבלת ההשפעה, ובחינה זו מגעת ב"מחשבה תחלה" היינו תחילה אפילו לפני תחלת המחשבה – למעלה משרש ההשפעה (ד״ה השם נפשנו שם. וראה גם תורת חיים שם פ״ב וג׳. המשך תער״ב (שם ואילך). לקוטי שיחות חי״ט ע׳ 384 ואילך).

ראה בארוכה תורת חיים שם פ״ג.

רש״י ד״ה וירא. וראה גם בראשית רבה פמ״ח, ט.

ראה ד״ה החודש הזה ש״ת פ״ג. ביום השמיני עצרת תש״ח פכ״ז. ובכמה מקומות.

ורק שבהיותר תחתון שב(גג) יריעות היה גם מין אחר של פשתן נוסף על ג׳ מיני צמר (רש״י תרומה כו, א). ויש לומר שזהו ענין הממוצע שצריך להיות בין דרגא לדרגא. וכן – סיום ותחתית הקרשים עמדו באדנים – דומם.

ולכאורה צריך עיון קצת מתקרת בית המקדש שהיה גבים ושדרות בארזים (מלכים א׳ ו, ט) – צומח. ולהעיר ממדות (פ״ד מ״ו) שעל גבי זה הייתה מעזיבה מ(טיט) אבנים וסיד. ובתורה אור ותורת חיים שבהערה סד, ש"הכלונסאות של ארז שהיה בתקרה הם היו תמכין לבד לעיקר התקרה הנעשה מבחינת דומם", "להחזיק המעזיבה בלבד" (וראה מאמרי אדה״ז תקס״ה ע׳ קמב, קמד, קמו). ולהעיר גם כן מלקוטי תורה וסידור שבהערה נ, שהארזים בהתקרות היו שקועים. עיין שם. ואין כאן מקומו.

ראה מדות פ״ג מ״ח (כפי גירסת רוב המפרשים). כסף משנה לרמב״ם הלכות בית הבחירה פ״א ה״ט. מפרשי המשנה שם בפ״א מ״ו. ועוד.

תורה אור ריש פרשת ויגש. תורת חיים שם פ״ח.

ראה גם תורת חיים שם, שבבית המקדש היה הגילוי דסוף מעשה במחשבה תחלה (ראה לעיל הערה נז).

וזהו גם הטעם מה שהמשכן היה דירת עראי של הקב״ה ובית המקדש דירת קבע (נסמן לעיל הערות מו; מז), כי כשהגילוי נמשך רק מלמעלה, אינו חודר בפנימיות כ״כ (ולהעיר מלקוטי תורה ויקרא (ב, ג-ד), שאתערותא דלעילא מצד עצמה – כשאין אחריה מיד עבודה מלמטה למעלה – אין לה קיום).

תורה אור שם. ובתורת חיים שם: בדוגמא דלעתיד. ולהעיר מתניא פל״ו: ונודע שימות המשיח כו' מעין זה בשעת מתן תורה.

המשך תרס״ו בתחלתו. ד״ה שוקיו שם פי״ט.

והטעמים שבזהר ועץ חיים (דלעיל הערה נה) הם הקדמה והכנה להשלמת הכוונה ד"דירה בתחתונים". כי ענין ה"דירה" הוא [לא רק שנמצא בה כל העצם, אלא גם] שהעצם נמצא בה בגילוי (ראה בארוכה לקוטי שיחות ח״ד ע׳ 1054), ולכן צריך ל״הטיב לברואיו״ ו״יכירו גדולתו״ – בחינת הגילויים, כי ידיעה והכרה זו הם הכנה לגילוי העצמות. (ובדוגמת המבואר בלקוטי שיחות ח״ג ע׳ 956, שאהבה ויראה, עם היותם בחינת גילויים, הם ״דרכי הוי׳״ – לפי שעל ידם דוקא בא עצמותו יתברך בגילוי, במעשה המצות. עיין שם).

וכמו שההתהוות, עם היות שהיא רק ביכולת העצמות, בכל זה ההתהוות בפועל הוא מהאור ועל ידי התלבשותו בכלים (אגרת הקדש סימן כ׳ – קל, ריש ע״ב), כן גם השלמת הכוונה ד״דירה בתחתונים״ – דירה לעצמותו, הוא על ידי (הקדמת) ״להטיב לברואיו״ – אור, ו״יכירו גדולתו״ – כלים.

ויש לומר בדרך אפשר שזהו גם כן הסדר ב״ושכנתי בתוכם״: משכן – אור, בית המקדש (דשלמה) – כלי, ובית המקדש דלעתיד – דירה לעצמותו.

והנפקותא שמזה בעבודת האדם:

באם כל ענין ההתהוות היה מצד הטעם, הרי ישנו איזה ענין ותפיסת מקום להבריאה, בזה שהיא משלמת את הכוונה. ובמילא – תפיסת מקום גם להאדם העובד, בזה שהוא הוא המשלים כוונה זו.

אבל מצד אמיתית ענין ההתהוות שהוא רק לפי שכן עלה ברצונו יתברך – נתאווה, הרי אין שום יחס ותפיסת מקום להבריאה, וכל ענינה הוא רק מה שעצמותו יתברך נתאוה כו'. ובמילא, עשיית הדירה הוא דוקא על ידי שלילת וביטול הרגש המציאות בתכלית (שלא יחשוב האדם: והרי דבר אני בזה שהשלמתי את הכוונה) – כי כל ענין ה"דירה בתחתונים" אין זה שצריך אליו כי אם לפי שנתאווה כו׳ וראה להלן הערה עה.

וגם מזה שהכוונה דדירה בתחתונים הוא בעצמותו יתברך שלמעלה מכל הגילויים [שהרי גם האור שבבחינת גילוי מן העצם הוא בשביל כוונה זו (ד״ה ועשית חג שבועות תרע״ג. אנכי ה׳ אלקיך תש״ג פ״ג)], מובן שמה שנתאווה כו׳ הוא רק מצד רצונו ובחירתו יתברך ולא מצד טעם – כי עצמותו יתברך הוא שלילת כל התוארים ואין שייך בו שום נטיה ח״ו.

ולבד זאת שעל ענין זה אין צורך להביאור דנתאווה כו׳ (מכיון שיש על זה טעם), הרי מצד המעלה והשלימות שבזה, אי אפשר שתושלם בו הכוונה דנתאווה כו׳ דירה. כי ענין הדירה הוא דירה לעצמותו כביכול, והרי הרגש המעלה והשלימות "סותר" ל"גילוי" העצמות (ראה הערות שלפנ״ז).

ובזה יובן מה שאמרו (שבת קיט, ריש ע״ב. שו״ע אדה״ז ריש סימן רסח) "כל המתפלל בערב שבת ואומר ויכולו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו נעשה שותף להקב״ה במעשה בראשית״, ובחדושי אגדות מהרש״א שם: "כי האומר ויכולו הרי הוא מעיד על מעשה בראשית (ראה שו״ע שם סי״ב) והרי הוא נעשה שותף עם הקב״ה כי בלתי עדותו לא יוודע עשייתו" – דלכאורה תמוה: האדם ע״י עדותו פועל רק שיוודע עשייתו, אבל אינו מחדש מאומה במעשה בראשית, ואיך הוא שותף להקב״ה שבורא את מעשה בראשית?

– כי שהנברא יכיר גדולתו (הגדולה זו מעשה בראשית. ברכות נח, סע״א) הוא חידוש גמור, כנ״ל. (ועל פי זה, ההעדאה ד"ויכולו" הוא כענין עדי קיום (שלולא עדותן השטר בטל), שעל ידי עדותם מקיימים – עושים את המציאות). ומה שאמרו "מעלה עליו הכתוב" – יש לומר לפי שהכח לחידוש זה בא מעצמותו יתברך (כדלהלן בפנים ובהערה עט).

ועוד ענין בזה: קליפות וסטרא אחרא הם מציאות דהעדר (תורת שלום ע׳ 134 ואילך). ובמילא, על ידי העבודה דאתכפיא סטרא אחרא ואתהפכא חשוכא לנהורא, נעשה חידוש בהבריאה, שנעשה מ"העדר" – "מציאות". ועל פי זה מובן הלשון "שותף כו' במעשה בראשית", שמפשטות הלשון מוכח שהאדם פועל במעשה בראשית גופא (בהמציאות דשמים וארץ).

וכמו שכתוב (איוב יד, טו. וראה שמות רבה ספל״ו. ויקרא רבה רפל״א) למעשה ידיך תכסוף.

ואף שגם במשכן ומקדש אמרו (כתובות ה, סע״א) "גדולים מעשה צדיקים", ומבואר בד״ה גדולים מעשה צדיקים תרפ״ה פ״ז, שהעילוי ד"מעשה צדיקים" הוא מצד ענין ההתחדשות שבביטול היש לאין (וראה גם שמות רבה שם, ש"למעשה ידיך תכסוף" קאי על עבודת המשכן), בכל זה, מכיון שהמשכת הקדושה במשכן ומקדש אינו בתחתונים ממש (המלאים קליפות וסטרא אחרא), הרי המשכה זו אינה התחדשות כל כך (ובדוגמת המבואר בד״ה תקעו תרס״ז (בהמשך תרס״ו. וראה גם ד״ה אחרי תרס״ו) שהבירורים שבדרך מלמעלה למטה, מכיון שהם מצד המשכת האור, אין זה ענין ההתחדשות), ובמילא אין זה אמיתית הענין ד"מעשה צדיקים" (עבודת האדם).

ולהעיר מפרש״י על הפסוק (בשלח טו, יז) מקדש אדנ-י כוננו ידיך: "ואימתי יבנה בשתי ידים .. לעתיד לבוא כו' " – והרי מה ש"גדולים מעשה צדיקים" למדו (כתובות שם) ממה שכתוב כוננו ידיך.

ואף שעשיית דירה זו באה רק על ידי עבודת האדם, מכל מקום אין בה שום עירוב של הרגש מציאותו (ראה לעיל הערה ע). ובדוגמת המבואר בד״ה אחרי הנ״ל בענין מעלת עבד פשוט על עבד נאמן, שעבודת עבד הפשוט דוקא היא התחדשות גמורה הבאה בכח עצמו, ועם זה [ואדרבה, הא בהא תליא] כל העבודה נקראת על שם האדון, כי עבד (הפשוט) אינו מהות בפני עצמו כלל. עיין שם בארוכה.

וגם מזה שהדירה היא לעצמותו (כדלהלן הערה עז) מובן שביטול זה הוא נעלה יותר מהביטול שבהעבודה שמצד הגילויים. כי הביטול שמצד בחינת הגילויים הוא רק "דכולא קמיה כלא חשיב", והביטול שמצד העצמות הוא הביטול ד"אין עוד" (ד״ה ולקחתם לכם תרס״א. אם בחוקותי תרס״ז).

וכמו שהתהוות התחתונים אינו מצד הטעם [וכמבואר בהמשך תרס״ו (בתחלתו) ותש״ב שם, שמצד הטעמים שבזהר ועץ חיים, אין צריך להיות התהוות עולמות בי״ע, ובפרט – התהוות עולם הזה], כן גם אמתית ענין גילוי (אלקות) שבהם, אינו מצד טעמים אלו. כי מכיון שהתהוות עולמות התחתונים אינו מצד [הטעמים שבבחינת] הגילויים, הרי הגילויים דערלאַנגען ניט בהם.

ועפי״ז יובן מה שבית המקדש הוצרך להיות (לכתחילה) מאבנים דוקא – אף שהחידוש שבבית המקדש (על המשכן) הוא מה שהתחתון נעשה כלי לאלקות (כנ״ל סעיף ח׳), והרי "לבנים" הם יותר "תחתון" מאבנים והיה צריך להיות הבנין בלבנים מצד הענין בהם שאינם אבנים (כ״א למטה מהם) – כי בחינת הגילוי שבבית המקדש לא היה יכול להיות נמשך בלבנים בענינם הנ״ל – כיון שבזה הרי הם מסטרא דמסאבותא (להעיר מתניא רפ״ז דהאוכל סתם לא עדיפי כו׳ שבקליפות וסטרא אחרא כו׳ שבעולם הזה כו׳ רובו ככולו רע כו׳),

ואף ש"אם לא נמצאו אבנים בונין בלבנים", הרי זה בנין (והמשכה בבחינת) "לבנים" בדרגתם שהם (כמו) אבנים (ראה בתניא שם שמסיים רק מעט טוב מעורב בתוכה).

ולהעיר מהמבואר בהמשך מצה זו תר״ם פ״ס בענין המעלה דנר חנוכה (שמצותה להניחה על פתח ביתו מבחוץ) על לימוד התורה – אף שגם בה נאמר “ובלכתך בדרך” – שמכיון ש”בלכתך בדרך” הוא בשוה ל”בשבתך בביתך”, אין זה הענין דהמשכת האור ברשות הרבים, טורי דפרודא, כבנר חנוכה. עיין שם.

וגם ה”דירה” שנעשית בתחתונים היא דירה לעצמותו. וכמבואר בנדון זה בכמה מקומות שבדירה נמצא כל העצם.

אגרת הקדש סימן כ׳ (קל, ריש ע”ב).

ראה גם ד״ה תקעו תרס״ז, שהכח שבנשמות שלמטה (בחינת עבדים פשוטים) לברר את טבע החומרי הגמור דנפש הבהמית – שהיא “התחדשות גמורה כחידוש יש מאין” – הוא מצד כח העצמות שביכולתו להוות מאין ליש. עיין שם.

רש״י נח יא, ג (ולהעיר מפירש״י פרשתנו ה, ז). תורה אור עז, סע״ג ואילך.

שהשעבוד בגלות מצרים “בלבנים” הוא תיקון להחטא דדור הפלגה (מקומות שנסמנו לעיל הערה כב. אור התורה שמות ע׳ כד. זאת חנוכת תר״ם פי״ד).

תורה אור שם.

תוספות ד״ה התורה (פסחים ל, ב) וד״ה אלא (זבחים צו, א). וראה רמב״ם הלכות כלים פ״א ה״ו וי״ג, רפט״ו. ועוד.

ועל דרך זה בלבנים. וגם האדם (שהוא העושה את הדירה), הרי יסודו הוא מעפר, ולכן אין שום תקנה להחומריות שלו [ולהנטיות שיש בו למדות רעות – יותר מבבעלי חיים, מצד חומר גופו (קונטרס ומעין מאמר ט״ו פ״ב)] רק על ידי שריפה – ביטול ישותו, בדוגמת כלי חרס שאין מועלת לו הגעלה ורק צריך שריפה באש. ועיין לקוטי תורה בחוקותי ד״ה ואפו (מח, ג).

נסמן לעיל הערה לב.

ד״ה קול דודי תש״ט בתחלתו. וראה בראשית רבה פט״ז, ד.

תניא רפל”ז.

רעיא מהימנא (בזח”ג קנג, א). ועוד. – הובא ונתבאר בתורה אור ריש פרשתנו, תורת חיים ואור התורה שם.

השייכות ד”לבון הלכתא” לב׳ הענינים דלבנים הוא – לפי שגם ב”לבון הלכתא” ישנם שני הענינים שבעשיית לבנים: (א) בירור וליבון ההלכות הוא על ידי הסרת והתשת כח הקליפות המעלימים ומכסים על ההלכות (ראה אגרת הקדש סימן כ״ו – קמד, ב ואילך), (ב) על ידי לבון ההלכות, מתחדשים גם ענינים חדשים (ראה אגרת הקדש שם, ד״ה אשריכם ישראל וד״ה לך לך תרס״ז).

תורה אור שם.

תניא פל״ו. זח״ג קכה, רע״א (וכבר העירו מזח״א קלט, א). רמב״ם סוף הלכות מלכים. עבודת הקדש ח״ב פל״ט.