English translation — מאמר וידבר אלוקים את כל הדברים האלה תשכ"ח

With the help of Heaven.

The second day of the festival of Shavuos, 5728.

"And G-d spoke all these words, saying: I am..."

And the Alter Rebbe

questions the meaning of "all these words,"

for seemingly it should have said, "And G-d spoke, I am..."

And he explains,

that "all these words" refers

to the entire Torah,

including everything that a veteran student will innovate in the future.

And this is "And G-d spoke all these words,"

for in the Ten Commandments

("I am...")

the entire Torah is included

("all these words").

And this can be connected with Rashi's commentary on the verse,

that what is written "all these words"

(before "I am...")

teaches that all the Ten Commandments were said

(initially)

in one utterance,

and afterwards each and every commandment was explained individually.

For the content of both explanations is,

that the giving of the Torah was in a manner of general principle and detail.

However, according to Rashi's explanation, the verse speaks of the Ten Commandments themselves,

that initially they were said in a general aspect

(one utterance)

and afterwards each and every commandment was detailed individually.

And according to the Alter Rebbe's explanation, the verse speaks of the details of the Torah,

that they too were given initially in a general aspect,

in the Ten Commandments,

and afterwards they were detailed and drawn down into revelation.

And one may add,

that even this itself

(the detailing and revelation of the Ten Commandments)

was in a manner of general principle and detail.

For the beginning of the drawing down and detailing of the Ten Commandments is in the Written Torah,

and afterwards it is detailed more specifically in the Oral Torah,

for the entire Oral Torah is the explanation

and elucidation of the Written Torah

("From where are these matters? The verse says..."),

and the Oral Torah itself is also in a manner of general principle and detail,

Mishnah, Beraisa,

Gemara, etc., until everything that a veteran student will innovate.

And it needs to be understood,

since all the details of the Torah,

up to everything that a veteran student will innovate,

were all given to Moshe at Sinai,

why were they not given from the outset in a revealed manner,

and why were they given initially in a general aspect.

B)

And this will be understood

from what we find similarly regarding the creation of the world

("He looked into the Torah and created the world"),

that it was in a manner of general principle and detail.

For our Sages said,

"With ten utterances the world was created... could it not have been created with one utterance?"

And it is known

that the "one utterance" is the utterance of "Bereishis"

("Bereishis is also an utterance"),

which is a general utterance that includes the nine utterances that follow it.

For this is what is written,

"In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth," and our Sages said,

"'the heavens' to include their hosts, and 'the earth' to include its hosts,"

that all creations came into being from the utterance of "Bereishis"

(as it is a general utterance that includes all the utterances).

However, they were in a general aspect,

and afterwards the utterance of "Bereishis" was detailed in the nine utterances that follow it,

and through this the creations came into being in a manner of division into details.

And behold, just as it is with the Ten Utterances as they were drawn forth in action and revelation

(in the Sefirah of Malchus19),

that the utterance of Bereishis is a general utterance that includes all the utterances,

so too is it in their source,

in the Ten Sefiros,

that the utterance of Bereishis is the general principle,

and there are several levels to this20.

For in the Targum Yerushalmi it is stated: "Bereishis — with wisdom21,"

that Chochmah22

is the general principle that includes all the Sefiros.

And in Targum Onkelos it is stated: "Bereishis — in the beginning,"

and this refers to the will of Kesser that is above Chochmah22,

and even up to the primordial thought of Adam Kadmon, which is the general will for the entirety of Hishtalshelus,

and higher still, the will to create worlds as it is before the Tzimtzum,

which is a level of general principle also relative to the primordial thought of Adam Kadmon.

And within the Tzimtzum itself there is also general and particular,

for after it arose in His will, He envisioned within Himself, in potential, all that was destined to be in actuality,

for the will and the envisioning are levels of general and particular23.

And it is found,

that just as the drawing forth of Torah is in the manner of general and particular in many levels,

as above,

so too is it in the drawing forth of worlds, which is in the manner of general and particular in many levels.

And also in this one must understand,

behold, the intention in the creation of the worlds is that there should be particular creations with division,

and this intention is the cause for the arousal of the will before the Tzimtzum, in order that from it there should later be drawn forth

(through the multiplicity of Hishtalshelus)

ten particular utterances from which particular creations will come into being,

and if so, it would seemingly have been necessary for the arousal of the will to be from the outset in a particular manner, in a way that it would be possible for the coming into being of particular creations to come from it, in accordance with the intention,

and why was the arousal of the will initially in the manner of a general principle?

3)

And this will be understood through the analogy of the influence of intellect from a teacher to a student,

for our Sages said24,

"A person should always teach his student in a concise way,"

and it is known25

the precise meaning of the phrase "concise way"

(and not "a concise intellect"),

that he must influence the student with all the depth and details that are in the intellect,

except that all this must be taught to him in a concise way,

in brief words,

from which the student can understand all the details.

And like the Mishnah that our holy Rabbi taught us,

for in the language of the Mishnah there are

(in concealment)

all the details,

the length, breadth, and depth,

that are later explained in the Gemara,

except that in the Mishnah they are in extreme brevity26.

And the reason for this

(that the influence must specifically be in a concise way)

is,

because if he were to influence him

(at the outset)

with all the details in revelation,

the student's senses would become confused,

and also it is possible that due to the multiplicity of expansion it would go in a crooked path,

therefore he must specifically teach him in a concise way,

for through this the intellect comes in a limited form

(that he knows the matter in its generality),

and through this,

behold, even after he delves into the details,

with a multiplicity of reasoning,

the expansion will be according to the manner of the form of the concise words and will not go in a crooked path.

And just as it is in the actual influence to the student,

that the beginning of the influence must specifically be in a concise way,

so too is it in the invention of the intellect that pertains to the student within the teacher himself,

that the beginning of the drawing forth

(and invention)

of the intellect is in the manner of a point.

For behold, it is known27

that in the teacher's intellect is also included the externality of the intellect that pertains to the student,

except,

that when it is included in the teacher's intellect,

behold, in addition to it not being discernible there on its own

(because it is included and mixed with the internality),

behold, even the externality of the intellect

(that pertains to the student)

is in a multiplicity of light,

therefore the teacher must contract his intellect,

meaning to conceal his own essential intellect so that it does not shine at all,

for through this the externality becomes separated from the internality and is discernible on its own,

and also the externality that is found with him then is only in the manner of a point,

and only after this

(before he actually influences)

does he envision within himself the details that he will influence to the recipient.

And the reason for this, that initially the intellect comes in the manner of a point, is,

because if the intellect that pertains to the student were found from the outset in a manner of expansion with a multiplicity of details,

then the details would be in a manner as they flow from the teacher's intellect,

in a multiplicity of light,

and they would not be directed and suited to the student's senses.

Therefore,

the invention of the intellect initially is in the manner of a point

(a matter of concealment),

for through this the intellect becomes bounded.

For despite the fact that in the point are included all the details that he will later influence to the student

[and moreover,

that in the point there is also, in concealment, from the internality of the intellect28],

nevertheless,

since all this is in concealment,

behold, through this a boundary and form

(general)

is made in the intellect, so that it will be in a manner that is fit to be influenced to the student,

and after this boundary is made in it,

behold, even after it is drawn forth in breadth and expansion

(when he specifies the details),

the breadth will be according to the manner of the boundary and form of the point.

4)

And the analogue from this will be understood Above,

that in order for the light that brings worlds into being to be commensurate with the creatures,

in a way that it can shine within them internally,

it was necessary that there first be a drawing forth in the manner of general and particular.

For since the worlds are incomparable relative to the Ein Sof light,

therefore,

if the drawing forth from Ein Sof were from the outset in a multiplicity of details,

then the details would be without limit

(as they are from the perspective of Ein Sof),

therefore it was necessary that there first be a drawing forth in the manner of a general principle,

for through this a general form is made in the light, so that it will be commensurate with the worlds,

and through this,

even the details that are drawn forth afterward are according to this form.

And just as in the influence of intellect from teacher to student,

the precedence of the general to the particulars is both in the actual influence,

that the influence is in an abbreviated manner,

brief statements that include all the particulars that the student will understand afterward,

and also in the drawing down of the intellect

(which pertains to the student)

within the teacher himself,

that the beginning of its drawing down is in the aspect of a point,

which includes all the particulars that are drawn down afterward

(within the teacher,

before the actual influence),

so too is it Above,

that the precedence of the general to the particulars is both in the drawing down of the light necessary for the creation of the worlds,

that initially the drawing down was in the aspect of a general and only afterward were the particulars drawn down

[And this matter of the precedence of the general to the particulars was in every level and level,

as mentioned above

(section 2)

at length],

and also in the actual creation,

that initially the world was created with one utterance,

the utterance of Bereishis,

and only afterward was the creation through all the particular utterances.

5)

But it must be understood,

that ostensibly,

the analogy of teacher and student is not comparable to the analogue.

For in the analogy,

the fact that there exists the intellect of the teacher that is above the category of influence to the student,

is a matter that stems from the teacher himself and not for the sake of the influence to the student.

Not so in the analogue,

for all the revelations,

even the most elevated revelations,

including even the light that is in the aspect of the revelation of the Essence that is above even the first general that pertains to the worlds

(the ascent of the Will),

is in order that

afterward from it may be drawn down

(through many contractions)

the ten utterances through which the world was created.

And based on this it must be understood,

why were the ten utterances not drawn down from the outset?

For the above explanation of the need for the precedence of the general to the particulars is after it was established that initially there will be the light that is above relation to the worlds and specifically from it will be the drawing down of the light commensurate with the worlds

[Since the light commensurate with the worlds is drawn from the light that is above relation to the worlds,

therefore there had to be initially the drawing down in the aspect of a general,

through which a limitation is made in the light,

as above],

but it is not understood,

that since the intention in the invention of the light that is above relation to the worlds is in order that afterward from it be drawn the light commensurate with the worlds down to the ten utterances through which the world was created,

then ostensibly there should have been from the outset the drawing down

(the invention)

of the ten utterances.

6)

But the matter is,

that in order for the purpose of creation to be completed,

that the creatures through their service will be nullified to G-dliness,

the creation was

in such a manner that even before the service there would be in the creatures a kind of preparation and readiness for the nullification that they will effect through their service.

Therefore the creation was in a manner that initially the light that is above relation to the worlds exists,

and specifically from it is drawn the light commensurate with the worlds,

through which the preparation is made in the world to be a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He.

And this will be understood by prefacing what our sages, of blessed memory, said,

that the reason the creation of the world was with ten utterances

(even though it could have been created with one utterance)

is to exact punishment from the wicked etc. and to give good reward to the righteous etc.

And the explanation of this is known,

that if the coming into being were from one utterance,

the world would be utterly nullified,

[for even the world of Beriah,

which came into being from the utterance of "Bereishis" in the Sefirah of Malchus,

is not a true entity,

and certainly if the coming into being were from the single utterance of Chochmah or Kesser,

and all the more so from the Will before the tzimtzum,

then the worlds would be in ultimate nullification],

and consequently the matter of choice would not apply.

Therefore, creation was with ten particular utterances,

so that through this the creations become in the aspect of a yesh (an independent entity),

and the matter of choice applies to them

(and the matter of reward and punishment,

to exact punishment from the wicked and to give good reward to the righteous).

But,

since the coming into being from the aspect of the ten utterances is in the aspect of a yesh, to the extent that it is possible to choose the opposite,

therefore, in order that the intention of creation be completed,

that there be a revelation of G-dliness in the world and that the creations be nullified to G-dliness,

creation was therefore in a manner that initially the single utterance was drawn down, and from it ten particular utterances were particularized,

so that through this, the generality of the single utterance is concealed within the ten utterances,

and through the service of man,

he reveals the generality of the single utterance

(in all levels,

up to the Will before the tzimtzum)

within the ten utterances and within the world

that came into being from them,

so that there will be a revelation of G-dliness in the world and it will be nullified to G-dliness.

7)

And based on this, it will also be understood that initially the light in the aspect of the revelation of the Essence, which is above relation to worlds, shone,

and specifically from it the light according to the measure of the worlds was drawn.

For it is known

that the nullification in the world that comes from the revelation of the light according to the measure of the worlds

is only the nullification of the yesh (the sense of independent existence),

since relative to this light they have a measure,

and the true matter of nullification,

nullification of existence,

is specifically from the light that is above relation to worlds.

And since the intention of creation is that the creations be nullified to G-dliness with ultimate nullification,

nullification of existence,

for specifically through this they become a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He,

therefore, there was first the light that is above relation to worlds,

and specifically from it the light according to the measure of the worlds was drawn,

so that through this, there is concealed within it also from the light that is above relation to worlds,

and as is known

that in the point of the reshimah (the impression left after tzimtzum) there is concealed

(not only all the particulars that will later be drawn down in the line,

but also)

from the innerness of the light that is above relation to worlds,

as in the analogy of a master and a student,

that in the point of the intellect of the master

(which remains with him at the time of the contraction)

there is concealed all the particulars that he will later influence to the student

(which are drawn from the externality of the intellect of the master),

and also from the innerness of the intellect of the master.

And since the particulars that are later drawn down, up to the ten utterances from which the world was actually created, are

(not a matter in itself,

but rather)

the particulars of the generality of the single utterance

(up to its first root)

in which there is concealed from the light that is above relation to worlds,

therefore,

through service,

they reveal within the ten utterances

(and within the world created from them)

not only the generality of the single utterance but also the light that is above relation to worlds

[and analogous to the analogy of the master and the student,

that through the student delving into the particulars,

he eventually becomes established in the mind of his master,

reaching the essential intellect of the master],

for through the revelation of this light,

it is drawn into the world that it be nullified to G-dliness with ultimate nullification,

nullification of existence.

8)

And on a deeper level it can be said,

that through service with the particulars,

one reaches the aspect of the Essence of the light,

which is above even the light that is beyond worlds that exists concealed within the generality of the worlds.

For what is concealed within the generality of the worlds is the aspect of the spreading forth of the light,

that initially the Ein Sof light filled the void,

which is the light in the aspect of spreading forth and revelation,

and afterwards

(in this light)

it arose in His Will to emanate and create,

thus the relation of the Will to the worlds

(the generality of the worlds in its first root)

to the light of the boundless that is beyond worlds,

is only to the light in the aspect of spreading forth and revelation,

and through service with the particulars, one reaches the Essence of the light.

The explanation is,

that the root of the particular is higher than the general.

And like Chochmah and Binah,

for although Chochmah is the general from which all the particulars of Binah are drawn,

nevertheless, from this very aspect,

the root of Binah is higher than the root of Chochmah.

Therefore,

through contemplation of the particulars of Binah, there are added

(sometimes)

new matters that were not in the point of Chochmah.

And similarly with speech,

that when the intellect is drawn into speech, there are produced in it many more particulars, even more than the particulars of Binah

(even after Binah is clothed in thought,

for what one thinks in a single thought, in speech it takes a span of time),

for the root of speech is higher even than the root of Binah,

therefore when one learns the intellect through speech,

new matters are generated for him that were not initially in thought,

even in the comprehension of Binah.

And similarly with the influence of intellect from a teacher to a student,

that through the intellect being particularized into many particulars

[and especially through the influence to a young student,

for the more the influence is to a younger student,

the more one must particularize the intellect into many particulars],

behold through this there is added to the teacher a new depth that was not with him before the influence,

as the saying,

"And from my students more than all of them."

And especially when the student raises difficulties on the intellect,

that in order to answer and remove the difficulty,

a new depth is awakened within him.

And the analogy from this will be understood above regarding the matter of the Ten Utterances,

for although the Ten Utterances are the particulars of the one utterance,

nevertheless,

from this very aspect,

since the root of the particular is higher than the general,

therefore through the service in the world that was created with Ten Utterances

[and especially that from this aspect that the world was created with Ten Utterances there is the possibility to choose also the opposite

(as above in section 6),

in the likeness of the difficulties that contradict the intellect],

one reaches higher than the aspect of the general of the world of the one utterance,

and furthermore,

that one reaches also the essence of the light,

which is above even the light

(the spreading forth of the light)

in which was the elevation of the will to the worlds.

9)

And now similarly is it also regarding the drawing down of Torah,

that through its being drawn down initially in the aspect of a general and then particularized into particulars,

behold the particulars are

(not a matter in themselves,

but rather)

particulars that emanate from the general,

and through this there is the power that also in the particulars of the Oral Torah,

and even to everything that a veteran student will innovate in the future,

there will be a revelation of the light of the general of the Written Torah,

and even to the general of the Ten Commandments

(that the study of every particular in Torah will be with awe and fear and trembling and sweat as it was at the time of the utterance of the Ten Commandments),

and even to the general of the one utterance in which all the Ten Commandments were included.

Moreover,

through study and toil in the particulars of the Oral Torah,

one reaches a level even beyond the general principle.

For this is what they said: "Whatever a veteran student will innovate in the future"

(specifically "to innovate"

),

for through toil in Torah, one draws from the aspect of Torah as it is rooted in the self-concealment of the Essence of Ein Sof,

which is above the aspect of Torah as it comes in a manner of extension and revelation.

And this is "I toiled and I found,"

for the concept of "finding"

("I found")

is that one finds a new thing that initially could not be imagined,

like a found object that comes

by way of absentmindedness.

And this is "I toiled and I found,"

that through toil in Torah one finds and reveals new matters,

and even to the extent that through toil in Torah

[and particularly in the inner dimension of Torah, which is like the Torah of Moshiach]

now,

we will merit the revelation of the Torah of Moshiach,

which comes

by way of absentmindedness,

"I have found Dovid My servant"

(specifically "I have found"),

for then there will be the revelation of the Essence of the Ein Sof without any garment,

(and even the revelation at the time of the Giving of the Torah was only like the revelation of the future),

with the coming of Moshiach our righteous one,

speedily, truly.