English translation — תולדות א

1.

On "And these are the generations of Yitzchak the son of Avraham, Avraham begot Yitzchak,"

Rashi brings what Chazal¹

say: "The scoffers of the generation were saying, 'From Avimelech Sarah became pregnant, etc.' What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He formed the features of Yitzchak's face similar to Avraham, and everyone testified, 'Avraham begot Yitzchak.'"

One must understand: Since Chazal say the matter in the manner of <b>question and answer</b> — "What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He formed, etc."

(and they are not satisfied to say briefly and smoothly "The scoffers of the generation were saying, etc., the Holy One, blessed be He, formed the features of his face, etc.,"

<b>without</b> the words "What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do?")

— it implies,

that in this matter of "He formed the features of his face, etc." there is a special <b>action</b>,

and therefore it stands in the language of a question — "What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do?"

(in wonder)

: What did the Above specifically do to secure the claim of the scoffers of the generation?

It is perplexing: In what consists the special distinction of "the form of the features of Yitzchak was similar to Avraham"?

It is after all a matter normal according to &lt;b&gt;nature&lt;/b&gt; that a son is similar to his father&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;

(There must be special reasons for him to be not similar)&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.

B.

Will one understand this according to the explanation in the wording that Chazal say&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;

In connection with several matters

(that they are)

"&lt;b&gt;difficult &lt;/b&gt;..

like the splitting of the Red Sea",

that also regarding the Holy One, blessed be He, it is difficult,

as it were.

It is known⁵

the explanation of this,

that the "difficult" of the splitting of the Red Sea consists

(mainly)

not in that the sea was split and in that afterwards it was standing like a wall⁶

that the splitting of the Red Sea is a smaller wonder than the creation of heaven and earth,

it is certainly not possible to say specifically about this "difficult"],

But in that which at the splitting of the Red Sea there were two opposites&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

together,

"healing for Israel and plague for Egypt"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

(for if the sea had not split,

the Egyptians would not have entered the sea)

— at a time when the attribute of justice argued: what distinguishes these from those, these are idolaters and those are idolaters&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;.

And for this reason it is "difficult"&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;,

for according to the order one must

To reckon with the attribute of strict justice,

and at the splitting of the Red Sea one did not reckon with this¹².

3.

Through this one will also understand in our matter:

It is known¹³

the difference between Abraham and Isaac,

that Abraham was Abraham My lover¹⁴,

a chariot to the attribute of kindness,

and therefore his service was in acts of kindness and hospitality,

and Isaac was Fear of Isaac¹⁵,

a chariot to the attribute of severity,

which therefore his service was digging wells — removing the earth and stones that cover the spring and revealing the living waters that flow <b>from below upward</b>.

there is a difference also regarding “that which went forth from him”

(the nourishment of the external forces)

as it is from the aspect

(the line of kindness of)

Abraham and as it is from

(the line of severity of)

Isaac: from Abraham went forth <b>Ishmael</b>¹⁷

— <b>kindness</b> of the husk.

And from Isaac went forth <b>Esau</b>¹⁷

— by your sword you shall live¹⁸,

<b>severity</b> of the husk].

And this is one of the explanations why the verse needs to say and specifically here "Avraham begot Yitzchak" — for at first glance it is not understandable:

a)

The necessity to say "Avraham begot Yitzchak" is only because the verse mentions earlier "Yitzchak ben Avraham" — and as Rashi¹⁹

explains "because the text wrote Yitzchak ben Avraham it was necessary to say etc." — one can nevertheless ask on this very thing: the words "ben Avraham" seemingly did not need to stand

(because this is already known from the previous sedras),

and consequently one would also not have needed to safeguard and say "Avraham begot Yitzchak",

but rather immediately relate about the generations of Yitzchak — "And Yitzchak was forty years old etc."²⁰?

b)

Why does the Torah hint at the protection against the claim of the scoffers of the generation specifically in Parshat Toldot,

where it speaks

(mainly)

about <b>the generations of </b>Isaac — Jacob and Esau²¹

(and also generations — events²²

of Isaac),

and “Isaac son of Abraham” is mentioned here only incidentally?

This should have been in the

(previous)

parshah²³,

where it speaks about <b>the birth of </b>Isaac²⁴.

But the explanation in this: from the language of the verse “<b>And </b>these are the generations of Isaac etc.” — with a vav ha-mosif — it is proven that the parshah comes as a continuation to earlier,

where it speaks about Ishmael.

And since

that also Ishmael is the son of Abraham,

<b>And on the contrary</b>²⁵

: in revelation Ishmael has more connection,

seemingly,

to Abraham than Isaac to Abraham,

because Ishmael is in the line of kindness

(just as Abraham²⁶

— only he is kindness of the husk²⁷,

and he derives from Abraham in the manner of "<b>went forth</b> from him"²⁸

— went out from him*²⁸)

and Isaac is in the line of severity,

opposite of the line of kindness —

Therefore the Torah must say

(also)

by Isaac that he is the son of Abraham,

and further add "Abraham begot Isaac",

that on the contrary — the lineage of Isaac to Abraham is entirely in a special manner: not only is Isaac <b>the son</b> of Abraham,

but Abraham <b>begot</b> Isaac²⁹

: in this consisted the essential matter of Abraham,

as it says in the verse³⁰

"For in Isaac

(specifically)

shall your seed be called".

And from this reason the Torah warns it first in Parshat Toldot: When one learns that Toldot Yitzchak is <b>Esav</b>,

strength of the husk

(as above),

and the main work of him

(his events)

of Yitzchak is digging wells

(opposite of the work of Avraham)

— then becomes³¹

<b>strength </b>of the claim of the scoffers of the generation,

that Yitzchak has no connection with Avraham.

And one must negate it.

D.

And this is the difficulty

(above, as it were)

in "the form of the face of Yitzchak was similar to Avraham":

That a son is similar to his father,

is it from the aspect that the son derives from the father

(from his body and from his soul)

is he similar to him in his body and in the nature of his soul³²

But Abraham and Isaac,

since that in the natures of their souls they were opposite one from the other,

Abraham was of the attribute of kindness and Isaac of the attribute of severity,

and from that aspect they were divided also in their intellect

(as is known³³

regarding the matter of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

that from that division in the root of their souls

they were divided in their intellect; Beis Shammai tended to stringency and Beis Hillel to leniency),

then according to nature they would have had to be divided — and moreover <b>opposite</b> — and especially in the features of their faces³⁴,

because the appearance of the face is connected with the qualities of the soul³⁵

: a person of kindness — has a pleasant countenance,

a person of might — with a stern face³⁶

etc.,

therefore the question arises "what did the Holy One, blessed be He, do": what advice is there to protect against the claim of the scoffers of the generation,

since that according to nature and order Abraham and Isaac must be opposites in facial features etc.,

just as in their conduct they are in kindness or in might opposite lines?

Since however that the scoffers of the generation had claimed "Avimelech³⁷

Sarah became pregnant",

did <b>Hashem</b> — a thing of wonder,

contrary to nature and order,

He Himself "formed the features of Yitzchak's face similar to Avraham".

5.

It is understood also simply,

that that which Hashem "formed the features of Yitzchak's face similar to Avraham",

is

was not only that their &lt;b&gt;physical&lt;/b&gt; appearance should be similar,

but &lt;b&gt;on the contrary&lt;/b&gt;: that which they were similar in their physical form,

is because their “countenance of the face” &lt;b&gt;spiritually&lt;/b&gt; was similar.

And according to what is explained in many places:

Even though chesed and gevurah are opposites from each other,

nevertheless the gevurot of Yitzchak are a continuation and result of the chasadim of Avraham

(as the verse says here: Avraham begot Yitzchak).

And not only because the cause of gevurah is — chesed: chesed indeed wants that the influence should be received and most benefit is in being able to receive³⁸

— it must be through the gevurot

(contraction of the influence)

specifically³⁹

— rather even more: the gevurot of Yitzchak are a matter of chesed <b>in revelation</b>,

through the gevurot specifically there is opened an <b>increase and addition</b> in the influence⁴⁰

(as known in the explanation of “<b>gevurot</b> geshamim”⁴¹),

therefore it is stated⁴²

regarding Yitzchak: “<b>And I will multiply</b> your seed and give you Yitzchak.”

And this inter-inclusion of Chesed

(of Abraham)

and Gevurah

(of Isaac)

takes itself from the side of that which is above order and progression — from the side of that can be a connection of opposites.

With this one will also understand the hint in the language of Chazal⁴³

"And everyone testified

"Avraham begot Yitzchak" — not "and they knew" and the like,

but "&lt;b&gt;and they testified&lt;/b&gt;"

(and Rashi repeats this language a second time: "&lt;b&gt;testimony&lt;/b&gt; there is that Avraham begot Yitzchak")

— what is the emphasis here in the matter of &lt;b&gt;testimony&lt;/b&gt;?

And one may explain the matter in this:

Testimony applies specifically to something hidden,

to something revealed,

even to a matter that is <b>obvious</b>,

one does not need testimony⁴⁴.

That is — through testimony there is drawn and revealed a matter which in itself is above

(definition)

revelation — not intended for revelation.

And in spirituality it is the drawing from above the chain of descent⁴⁵.

And this is in our matter the hint in "testimony" — that which "Abraham begot Isaac",

the inclusion of kindness and might,

is it from the drawing of the level above the chain of descent⁴⁶

: according to nature and intellect it cannot be,

it has no place,

but "there is testimony here" — in the manner of testimony that they testify that they themselves saw it,

one must believe them.

6.

The lesson from this in our service is:

It is known⁴⁷

The reason that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called fathers is because they are the root and source of <b>each one</b> of the souls of Israel,

and the aspect of each of the fathers is inherited by each one of their descendants after them in every generation,

is that <b>every</b> Jew must have the services of all three fathers.

From this it is understood,

that also the "form of the appearance of His face etc.",

the inclusion of Chesed and Gevurah,

can

(and must)

be with every Jew.

For example, as it states in Tanya⁴⁸,

Weeping is fixed in my heart from one side and joy is fixed in my heart from the other side.

Which is a matter that is above the limitation of nature and the order of the chain of descent.

As mentioned above,

that from the perspective of the order of the chain of descent, Chesed and Gevurah are two opposite lines and they cannot be together.

And as the statement of the Sifri⁴⁹

that love and fear together can be only in the attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He,

(only in the service of G-d,

not in matters of the world).

(But in this matter of Tekiah etc. — there are two levels&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

: a)

The bitterness should be thunderous at night,

and the joy — Shabbos.

b)

The more difficult [one] — the bitterness with joy should be together,

at once.

And since every Jew is an heir of the Patriarchs,

That an heir takes everything, after all,

therefore each one can

(at least sometimes)

insert his order also in &lt;b&gt;this &lt;/b&gt;manner).

7.

Another instruction from the above is:

In order that all should testify that Abraham begot Isaac,

the Almighty could have made from the outset the features of Abraham's face similar to Isaac⁵¹,

But this is even by nature and intellect more difficult⁵²

than it was in actuality — "He engraved the features of Isaac's face similar to Abraham"⁵³.

What the lesson from this for each one is:

When one has before oneself a service that can be done in one of the two lines — the line of kindness or the line of severity — and there is a doubt which of them to choose,

one must choose the line of kindness.

And as it stands in Tanya similarly⁵⁴,

that when one brings a Jew close,

is besides this that "he did not lose the reward of the mitzvah of loving fellow Jews" is "and all this and perhaps he will be able to bring them close to Torah and the service of G-d".

Ch.

The above matter — that because of the claim of the scoffers of the generation they nullified nature and the orders of the chain of descent and they made the likeness of the face of Yitzchak similar to Avraham — one should connect also

With "your wellsprings shall spread forth outward"⁵⁵,

which primarily began on Yud-Tes Kislev⁵⁶

(And note that the parshah of Toldot always falls in the month of Kislev⁵⁷

(or on Shabbat Mevarchim⁵⁸

Kislev)

— the month of redemption,

in which the matter of "your wellsprings shall spread forth outward" was revealed)

It is stated in the Zohar⁵⁹,

that in the Torah there are bodies of Torah — the revealed aspect of Torah,

and the soul of the Torah — the secrets of the Torah.

According to the order of the chain of descent, they are

(the soul of the Torah and the body of the Torah)

seemingly two separate matters,

and each one of them has its own manner: the body of the Torah is in revelation and the soul of the Torah is in concealment

(and it is also understood from the name razin — secrets: at the time that one reveals,

it becomes a secret).

Comes Yud-Tes Kislev and it "proclaims" — "Your springs will spread forth outward."

That the springs of the inner dimension of the Torah should be drawn forth and revealed,

and in a manner of dissemination,

and also into "the outside."

— In addition to that which Chassidus Chabad brought down the inner dimension of the Torah into understanding and comprehension,

wisdom, understanding and knowledge

(which before the Alter Rebbe,

and even by

the Alter Rebbe himself — before Petersburg,

was not so much the enclothing in comprehension⁶⁰),

until that Chassidus Chabad demands,

as his honor our master and teacher the Rebbe writes,

one⁶¹

should study Chassidus with comprehension in the same manner as one studies a sugya in Nigleh — the external aspect of the student himself —

Is in addition to this,

one demands,

that one should disseminate the wellsprings outward — literally — to another that is located in “outward” —

And even more: one says indeed “outward” without any limitations,

i.

e.

that even in the most lowly outward one must disseminate the wellsprings.

9.

At first glance it is a great wonder: even in the revealed [part of Torah] there are limitations,

until and as it is written⁶²

"And to the wicked, God said: What is it to you to recount My statutes,"

so how does one say,

May your springs spread forth outward?

To this comes the instruction,

that when it touches upon the essence of a Jew,

that he is rooted in the Essence,

one does not reckon with the limitations of the chain of descent,

and the Most High overturns and forms

the features of his face of Yitzchak that he should be similar to Avraham,

that also the innermost dimension of the Torah which, from the perspective of the order of the chain of descent, is in concealment

(gevurah,

Yitzchak)

should come into revelation

(chesed,

Avraham).

And the Alter Rebbe says⁶³

that upon this is intended the parable of a prince who became very ill,

until there was no remedy,

except to grind a precious stone that is fixed in the king's crown — and that upon this precious stone depends the entire beauty of the "crown of the diadem that crowns" — and give it as a drink to the prince.

The king said,

that however great is the preciousness of the crown of the kingdom,

it is nevertheless as nothing and naught compared to the life of his son.

— according to law one may not make use even of the king's crown&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;.

And here one is entirely losing the essence of the crown — because of the king's son

(although that he is a king's son,

he is nevertheless not the king&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;).

For when it touches the life of his son who is the essence of the king — all calculations become nullified.

And the Alter Rebbe adds in this a tremendous matter: even when the condition of the king's son has become so much worse,

until that it is &lt;b&gt;a doubt &lt;/b&gt;whether he will accept the medical treatment even a drop of them,

nevertheless,

it is worthwhile and they crush the precious stone,

that most of it will

go to waste,

&lt;b&gt;If &lt;/b&gt;a &lt;b&gt;single &lt;/b&gt;drop enters into the mouth of the king's son.

And through the involvement in "Your springs will spread outward,"

this brings

"Kasi mar" of the King Moshiach,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5725)