Parshas Lech Lecha
1. Regarding Parshas Lech Lecha, there is the well-known saying of the Previous Rebbe[1] in the name of his father, the Rebbe Rashab, of blessed memory, as follows: "Parshas Bereishis is a joyful sidrah: G‑d, blessed be He, created worlds and creatures… The end of the sidrah is not even all that pleasant, but still, the sidrah as a whole is a joyful one… Parshas Noach is the Flood; it is a gloomy week, but it is a joyful end of the week — Avraham Avinu was born. The truly joyful week, however, is Parshas Lech Lecha, when all the days of the week one lives with Avraham Avinu etc."
From the fact that the Rebbe says that (specifically) Parshas Lech Lecha is "the truly joyful week," it is evident that even at the end of the week of Parshas Noach (where it speaks of the birth of Avraham), the true joy is not yet present as it is in the week of Lech Lecha:
For since all the matters found in one sidrah are connected with one another, therefore, because of the lack of joyfulness in the sidrah as a whole, something is lacking also in the joy of the sidrah's conclusion.
The same applies to Parshas Bereishis: although it is (as a whole) "a joyful sidrah," nevertheless, because its end is "not all that pleasant," the true joyfulness is absent also from the sidrah as a whole.
This needs to be understood: since Parshas Bereishis (as a whole) is a "joyful sidrah" and Parshas Noach (as a whole) is a "gloomy week," the division of the sidros should seemingly have been arranged so that the unpleasant ending of Parshas Bereishis would be the beginning of Parshas Noach, and the joyful end of Parshas Noach (the birth of Avraham Avinu) would be the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha?
2. The general explanation of this:
It is known that with Avraham Avinu [the virtue of Parshas Lech Lecha being, as mentioned above, that "all the days of the week one lives with Avraham Avinu"] there began the era of "two thousand years of Torah"[2], and he was the first (of the Patriarchs) who began[3] the preparation for the Giving of the Torah.
And since the Giving of the Torah brought about the union of the higher and the lower realms[4], it stands to reason that the advantage of Parshas Lech Lecha (the whole of which speaks of Avraham Avinu) over the two preceding sidros likewise lies in the fact that its content is the preparation for the union of the higher and the lower realms.
It may be said that this is also the explanation of why Parshas Lech Lecha is the third sidrah (similar to "a threefold Torah"[5]) — the third (the middle one), which joins "the higher" and "the lower."
That is to say: Parshas Bereishis, the first sidrah, has as its content[6] the creation of the world, which was created by G‑d — "the higher"; the content of Parshas Noach, the second sidrah, is the refinement of the lower realm (through the service of Noach, the righteous man, and especially through the Flood[7]) — "the lower"; and Parshas Lech Lecha, the third sidrah, is concerned with the union of the higher and the lower[8].
With this it will be understood why Parshas Noach begins with "These are the generations of Noach; Noach was a righteous man etc.": for here it already speaks of Noach's matters that came about through his own service ("the offspring of the righteous are good deeds"[9]); whereas the birth of Noach etc., up to "And Noach found favor in the eyes of G‑d"[10] — these being matters that came about (mainly) not on account of his service but on account of an arousal from Above — therefore belong[11] to Parshas Bereishis[12].
And similarly with regard to several matters concerning Avraham Avinu which are found not in Parshas Lech Lecha but in Parshas Noach. The reason is that Avraham Avinu's service of preparing for the Giving of the Torah (the union of the higher and the lower) began only with (and after) "Lech Lecha etc."[13] (when Avraham left Charan for Eretz Yisrael[14]); whereas the birth of Avraham Avinu and his matters of service until "Lech Lecha" were (mainly) a continuation (and the completion and conclusion) of the refinement and elevation of the lower realms which began with the service of Noach, the righteous man.
3. In order to understand the connection of "Lech Lecha" with the Giving of the Torah — that specifically after "Lech Lecha" Avraham began the order of service of preparing for the Giving of the Torah — one must first explain why the Midrash[15] connects the matter of "And G‑d said to Avram, 'Lech Lecha'" with Avraham's conduct in asking for mercy even for such sinners as the people of Sedom (unlike Noach, who did not ask for mercy for the generation of the Flood[16]).
Seemingly this is not understood: Avraham Avinu's asking for mercy for the people of Sedom was only that they be saved in the merit of the righteous who might be found there[17]; and as the Zohar[18] says about this, since he prayed for them only in the merit of the righteous [and upon hearing that there were not ten righteous men there, "he did not ask for mercy" — unlike Moshe Rabbeinu, who stood up even for those who made the Golden Calf[19]], "he did not act etc. as was fitting." What, then, is the great virtue of this conduct ("to ask for mercy for the Sodomites" in the merit of the righteous), to the point that it is connected with (the matter of "Lech Lecha," with which began the) preparation for the Giving of the Torah?
The explanation of this: since the union between the higher and the lower was actually effected only at the Giving of the Torah, and Avraham Avinu's service was only the preparation for it, therefore his service of asking for mercy for the Sodomites ("the lower") was likewise not for their own sake, but in the merit of the righteous.
That is to say: the three modes of conduct mentioned above — of Noach, of Avraham and of Moshe Rabbeinu — correspond to the three periods mentioned above: (a) before the preparation for the Giving of the Torah, (b) the preparation for the Giving of the Torah, and (c) the Giving of the Torah:
In the period before the preparation for the Giving of the Torah, since "the higher" and "the lower" had no connection with each other, Noach did not pray at all for the generation of the Flood — "he did nothing"[20]; in the second period, when the preparation for the union between the higher and the lower began, Avraham accordingly prayed for the Sodomites in the merit of the righteous; and in the third period, that of the Giving of the Torah — the union of the higher and the lower — Moshe Rabbeinu stood up for those who made the Golden Calf for their own sake (not only in the merit of the righteous).
4. This difference between the three periods mentioned above, and their connection with the three modes of conduct mentioned above
— and also the difference between the period of Parshas Noach, when the refinement of the lower realm began (as mentioned above, section 2), and the period of Parshas Bereishis, when the drawing down and influence into the world came "from Above" (as mentioned there), even though then too there was service on the part of the lower beings through a number of righteous people —
will be understood more clearly through an analogy of the transmission of intellect from a teacher to a student, in which there are three general modes:
One mode is that the teacher makes the student understand only the idea that he imparts to him, but does not occupy himself with training him so that he himself will be able to grasp an idea.
The second mode: the teacher gives the student a "method" and trains him so that he will be able to learn and understand — by his own power.
It is understood that each of the two modes has an advantage not found in the other: with respect to the student's faculties, the second mode is higher, since it is specifically this kind of influence that enables him to understand by his own power;
but with respect to the transmission of intellect itself, the first mode is higher, for what the student understands by his own power (through the teacher having trained him how to understand) is only a small comprehension relative to the intellect that the teacher imparts to him[21].
A third mode (which includes both of the advantages mentioned above) is that the teacher's influence affects the student to such an extent that the student's faculties become like the teacher's faculties, so that the student can then, by himself and by his own power, originate and grasp lofty ideas just as the teacher does.
5. It may be said that the three periods of Parshas Bereishis, Noach and Lech Lecha are, by way of example, like the three modes mentioned above:
The service of the righteous in the "ten generations from Adam to Noach"[22] came mainly through the influence "from Above," and was not so much bound up with the power and accomplishment of the righteous themselves.
Like Chanoch: although "he was righteous" [despite having lived in a corrupt generation — which shows his great service in not being impressed and influenced by the people of his generation[23]], he was nevertheless "of unsettled mind… to turn wicked"; and had he remained longer among the people of his generation, he would no longer have prevailed over evil (and therefore "the Holy One, blessed be He, hastened and removed him"[24]). For his being "righteous" came mainly (not through his own powers, but) through a light from Above that shone upon him; therefore, had he remained longer in the corrupt world and descended to a state where the light from Above does not shine, he would not then have been able (by his own power) to maintain his level of righteousness as before.
This is analogous to the influence in the first mode, in which, although the student grasps (and labors over) the idea the teacher imparts to him, he cannot originate an idea by his own power.
The service of the righteous in the "ten generations from Noach to Avraham" already came mainly (not only from the light from Above, but) from their own power and accomplishment, to the point that their service also had a connection with the world outside themselves:
As we find with Noach, that not only was he himself "a righteous man, perfect (even) in his generations"[25] [and not "of unsettled mind… to turn wicked"], but more than that: he also rebuked the generation of the Flood and told them, "Repent"[26].
[And all the more so after the Flood, when Noach, through the service of the offerings, brought about G‑d's promise, "I will not again etc. … shall not cease"[27], up to the "sign of the covenant" of the rainbow[28], which indicates the refinement of the lower realm[29].]
Nevertheless, precisely because the service at that time was bound up with the lower realm ("the lower"), which (in itself) bears no comparison to G‑dliness ("the higher"), the revelation of G‑dliness drawn down through the service was also constricted and limited according to the measure of the lower beings;
to the point that "Noach was of those of little faith"[30]: his comprehension of G‑dliness was (mainly) in matters that are understandable to the intellect of created beings ("the lower"), but the matters of G‑dliness that can be "grasped" only with faith, which is above intellect ("the higher"), were with him in a state of smallness ("of little faith").
This is similar to the teacher's influence in the second mode, where the idea the student originates by his own power is a limited idea, incomparable to the teacher's intellect.
In the service of Avraham Avinu both advantages were present: the beginning (and foundation[31]) of his service was through intellect, by proofs from the matters of the world[32] ("the lower"), and together with that, "he did not question the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He"[33], and "You found his heart faithful before You"[34] — he "accepted" G‑dliness with simple, sincere faith, like a simple servant[35].
[And similarly with regard to his service of publicizing G‑dliness in the world, that here too both advantages were present: the matters of G‑dliness that he publicized were in essence "beyond the capacity of human intellect," and nevertheless he found an explanation even for these matters, to the point that even "the simplest of people" could grasp them[36].]
This is analogous to the influence in the third mode, in which the student's faculties become like the teacher's faculties.
6. However, even the third mode of influence, in which the student's faculties become like the teacher's faculties, is an analogy only for the preparation for the union of the higher and the lower (as it was accomplished through the service of Avraham Avinu), and not for the union itself, which came about at the Giving of the Torah:
The fact that the teacher's influence (in the analogy) has the power to bring about that the student's faculties become like the teacher's faculties is because even before the influence the student is a person of intellect (to the point of being fit to receive the teacher's influence). Consequently, the student's intellect even beforehand (before the influence) is not a true "lower one" (not utterly incomparable) relative to the teacher's intellect[37].
Moreover: since the student's faculties (later) become like the teacher's faculties through the refinement of the student's faculties, it follows that (in addition to the fact that even beforehand the student is not a true "lower one," as mentioned above) the "union" of the teacher with the student is only with the level of the student's intellect that has been elevated and refined through the teacher's influence, but not with the level of the student's intellect as it is in itself (before the influence):
Whereas with the union of the higher and the lower that was effected at the Giving of the Torah, (a) before the Giving of the Torah "the lower" had no connection to "the higher"; on the contrary, there was a "decree" (a "cut"[38]) between them — and their union at the Giving of the Torah is solely by the power of G‑d, the Omnipotent, Who is "beyond all impossibility"[39] and bears opposites together; and therefore (b) the union of the higher and the lower (at the Giving of the Torah) is also with the level of the lower beings as they are in themselves — lower beings[40].
7. The four modes mentioned above exist, in their parallel form, also now (after the Giving of the Torah) in man's service:
One mode (paralleling the service that came from "Above," in the period "from Adam to Noach") is that a person's service is from the side of the soul, but he does not engage with the body
[and although the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos must be done with the physical body, his intent and effort in this is not to have an effect on the body; for him the body is merely a "means" of carrying out the service (of Torah and mitzvos) of the soul[41]],
and all the more so is he not out to have an effect on the world (outside himself):
A second mode (paralleling the service from "below," the period "from Noach to Avraham"): he also works (with the body and even) with the world, so that it should be a dwelling place for G‑d, blessed be He; nevertheless, he lacks the "self-dedication," to the point of self-sacrifice, to carry out the Supernal intent that the world become a dwelling place for G‑d, and his involvement in this extends only insofar as it concerns his own existence — to fulfill his mission[42].
For example: he does indeed endeavor to influence other Jews, to bring them close to Torah and mitzvos, but his endeavor in this extends only insofar as it is bound up with fulfilling the command "You shall surely rebuke your fellow"[43] (which he has been commanded), and he lacks the devotion and self-giving toward the intended goal — that those Jews actually be drawn close.
— Similar to this was Noach's conduct with the generation of the Flood. Although he rebuked them for a hundred and twenty years, "every single day"[44], this was (mainly) in order to fulfill the command he had been commanded[45]; and therefore, when his rebuke that they should repent did not help, he did not stand up (with self-sacrifice) to ask for mercy for them[46].
A third mode (paralleling the service of the period of preparation for the Giving of the Torah, when the connection of the higher and the lower already begins to be felt) is that he endeavors with devotion (to the point of self-sacrifice) to carry out the intent and make the world a dwelling place for G‑d, and all the more so (out of a feeling of ahavas Yisrael, love for a fellow Jew) to bring Jews close to Torah and mitzvos.
Nevertheless, this is a way of dealing with another in which (a) what is sought is (only) to raise the other and bring him close to Torah and mitzvos (but not an attachment to the other as he stands in his lowly state); and (b) his effort to bring the other close to the service of G‑d, too, comes specifically when he feels that the other is capable of being drawn close
[similar to what was said earlier (section 6) regarding the union of teacher and student (in the third mode): that (a) the union consists in the student's faculties becoming refined and becoming like the teacher's faculties, and that (b) the refinement of the student's faculties is effected only because he was a person of intellect beforehand as well]
— Similar to this was the conduct of Avraham Avinu: although he gave himself over with self-sacrifice[47] for the people of his generation [to bring them to recognize and "call out" (proclaim) "the G‑d of the world"[48] (that the world is G‑dliness[49])], to the point that he placed himself in danger[50] to pray even for the people of Sedom,
his prayer was nevertheless only[51] that they be saved in the merit of the righteous who were found there (who effect a "refinement" in the place where they are found), and when he learned that there were not ten righteous people there [so that, consequently, "it is not a place that can endure through repentance"[52]], he prayed no more;
A fourth mode is that his love for another Jew is "as yourself" — an essential love that is above calculations[53]; and therefore he gives himself over for him even when, from the standpoint of intellect, he finds no virtues in him[54]. He does this not only out of the calculation "perhaps he will be able to draw them close to Torah and the service of G‑d"[55], but out of his essential love for him[56].
[Similar to the union of the higher and the lower that was newly effected at the Giving of the Torah, where the union is with the lower beings as they are in themselves (in their lowliness).]
— Similar to this was the conduct of Moshe Rabbeinu [through whom the Torah was given, and the Torah is called by his name[57]]: he stood up even for those who made the Golden Calf — and in such a manner as "And if not, erase me, please, etc." — and "he did not move from there until He said to him, 'I have forgiven, as you have spoken.'"
8. In light of the above it will also be understood why Avraham Avinu's preparation for the union of the higher and the lower of the Giving of the Torah began after the matter of "Lech Lecha":
When a Jew's service of making the world a dwelling place for G‑d stems (mainly) from his own existence (to fulfill his mission and the like), his effect on the world is lacking
[similar to when one rebukes another merely in order to fulfill the command "You shall surely rebuke your fellow": even when he does so "a hundred times"[58], it does not affect the other as strongly as a rebuke that seeks the other's good[59]];
and in order to have an effect on the world [even in the manner that Avraham Avinu accomplished before the Giving of the Torah, and all the more so as a preparation that leads to the Giving of the Torah], one must "go away" (and go out) from one's own existence — "Go for yourself from your land, from your birthplace and from your father's house" — from one's desires, habits (character traits) and intellect (even from desires etc. of holiness)[60].
9. According to this one can also explain why, although Parshas Bereishis (as a whole) and (the end of) Parshas Noach are also joyful, … "the truly joyful week, however, is" (specifically) "Parshas Lech Lecha":
Joy breaks through boundaries[61]. Therefore, regarding Parshas Bereishis: since the joy of that sidrah is (as he says in the talk) due to the fact that "G‑d, blessed be He, created worlds and creatures," it is not a complete joy.
For although through the coming into being of the world from nothing to something there is brought out the G‑dly power that is not defined by "nothing" and "something"[62] (which breaks through the boundaries of "nothing" and "something"), nevertheless, since the world (as it is in Parshas Bereishis) was such that its existence[63] was sustained from "Above" (and not by virtue of the content of the world itself)[64], the matter of breaking through the boundaries of "nothing" and "something" was consequently not yet felt (to such an extent), and therefore[65] it is not a complete joy.
The same applies to the end of Parshas Noach — the birth of Avraham Avinu[66], the first to make a preparation for the nullification of the decree between the higher and the lower (the breaking through of boundaries): since at that time the preparation had not yet actually taken place (and as mentioned above, it began only after Lech Lecha), it is therefore still not a complete joy. Specifically Parshas Lech Lecha — since then the preparation for the union of the higher and the lower was actually accomplished — is therefore "the truly joyful week"[67].
(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Noach and Shabbos Parshas Balak, 5724)
Key Lesson
Lech Lecha is "the truly joyful week" because with Avraham's going out from his land began the real preparation for the Giving of the Torah, the union of the higher and the lower, and true joy is the joy that breaks through boundaries. The Rebbe traces a ladder of four ways of reaching another Jew: serving only for one's own soul, helping others merely to discharge a duty, devoting oneself to others when they seem capable of being raised, and Moshe's essential love that stands up even for one who seems to have no merit at all. To reach even the third level one must first "go out" of one's own desires, habits and reasoning; and the Giving of the Torah empowers us to reach the fourth, loving a fellow Jew "as yourself," exactly as he is.