אם לא תדעי לך היפה בנשים צאי לך…

AI research Found by AI reading every place in the Rebbe’s works that cites this maamar, and checked against each source by a second AI reader, the less certain by a third. Only what rated high is shown: the Rebbe’s own words, about this very passage. No person has reviewed it yet, so check the place itself before relying on a detail. See something to correct? Send a suggestion

The maamar in the Rebbe’s light

The Rebbe’s reading of this maamar centers on its boldest pun: „צאן מלשון צאי” (tzon, the flock, from tze’i, “go out”). At the farbrengen of 10 Kislev 5737, in his maamar Padah b’Shalom, he takes up the known question why Yaakov’s whole work and wealth came through Lavan’s flock rather than servants or cattle, and answers, as the Mitteler Rebbe’s discourses explain, in this maamar’s terms: the flock is what goes out from “Lavan,” „לובן העליון כמו שהוא במקומו” (the supernal whiteness as it is in its own place), so it relates to the world not as a son to a father but as a flock to its shepherd, through bittul (ביטול). In the edited sicha of that day (Likkutei Sichos vol. 15) he adds that this going out means leaving „ד׳ אמות של תורה” (the four cubits of Torah) to make the world a dwelling, which draws out a person’s true bittul, and that this bittul is what “breaks through” the bounds of the worlds, „מאד מאד” (exceedingly, exceedingly). In a sicha on Lech Lecha (Likkutei Sichos vol. 3) he sets beside the paragraph’s „אבל אנו אין לנו כח זה” (“we have no such power”) the other side: Yaakov’s rods drew down what tefillin draw, yet stayed plain sticks, while our mitzvos make the object itself holy. Perhaps (biur b’derech efshar) the reader comes away seeing the flock less as an image of lowliness than as the way the highest light reaches the lowest place.

Paragraph by paragraph

1. ¶5

   The Rebbe explainsThe Rebbe says this in more than one place

   In a maamar for Shabbos Vayishlach 5718 on Yaakov’s message to Eisav, „ויהי לי שור וחמור צאן ועבד ושפחה” (“I have oxen and donkeys, flocks, servants and maidservants”), where the Midrash says „צאן אלו ישראל” (the flocks are Israel), the Rebbe, following the Mitteler Rebbe’s discourse on this verse in Torah Chaim (so the editors’ note 9), reads the flocks, servants and maidservants as service through kabbalas ol (קבלת עול).

   „שאין להצאן שום רצונות כלל והולכת להמקום שמוליכים אותה” (A flock has no will of its own and goes wherever it is led); that, he says, is also why tzon comes from “go out” (tze’i), as in „צאי לך בעקבות הצאן” (“go out in the footsteps of the flock”) and „צאינה וראינה” (“go out and see”) (a reading already in Torah Chaim, which cites this maamar for it): „היציאה מעצמו ומכל עניניו” (going out of oneself and all one’s concerns), in kabbalas ol with no reasoning of one’s own, and through this going out of all the levels of hishtalshelus. Perhaps (biur b’derech efshar) this is the human side of the paragraph’s flock „היוצא מלמעלה מסדר ההשתלשלות” (“that goes out from above the order of the chain of worlds”).

   The Alter Rebbeאך זאת העצה היעוצה צאי לך בעקבי הצאן. צאן מלשון צאי כלומר דבר היוצא

   The Rebbeוזהו גם שצאן הוא מלשון צאי, כמ״ש צאי לך בעקבות הצאן, צאינה וראינה, דצאינה הו״ע היציאה מעצמו ומכל עניניו

   Toras Menachem (Hisvaaduyos), vol. כא (תשח״י א), p. 182 (the editors’ note 12 cites Torah Ohr, Vayeitzei 23c; Torah Chaim, Vayeitzei 38b and Vayishlach 39c ff.; Or HaTorah, Vayishlach 228a) · ש״פ וישלח, י״ד כסלו, ה׳תשח״י (בלתי מוגה)

   Suggest a correction

2. ¶5

   The Rebbe explainsThe Rebbe says this in more than one place

   In his maamar „פדה בשלום” (Padah b’Shalom) for 10 Kislev 5737, the Mitteler Rebbe’s day of liberation, which he links to the Mitteler Rebbe’s discourse on „וישכם לבן” (“Lavan rose early”) in Torah Chaim, the Rebbe takes up the known question, raised in Torah Chaim, why Yaakov’s work and success at Lavan’s centered on the flock, and not on servants or cattle, which seem to matter more.

   He answers, “as explained also in the discourses of the master of the liberation” (the Mitteler Rebbe), that tzon means going out, and since Lavan’s sons say “from what belonged to our father he has made all this wealth,” where “our father” is Lavan, „בחינת לובן העליון” (the supernal whiteness), the flock is what goes out from the supernal whiteness as it is in its own place: „עבודת יעקב, להמשיך מבחינת ההעלם” (Yaakov’s work was to draw from the hidden), up to the essential hiddenness (העלם העצמי). Such a source cannot relate to the world as a father to a son, only „בדוגמת הצאן לרועה” (as a shepherd to his flock), and the vessel for it is „ביטול הצאן לרועה הוא נעלה יותר מביטול שאר הבהמות” (the flock’s bittul to its shepherd, deeper than that of any other animal); that is why the Midrash ranks “I am His flock” above “I am His son.”

   The Alter Rebbeצאן מלשון צאי כלומר דבר היוצא דהיינו בחי׳ היוצא מלמעלה מסדר ההשתלשלות והוא בחי׳ צאן לבן לובן העליון

   The Rebbeדענין הצאן הוא מלשון יציאה. וכיון שאומר ומאשר לאבינו עשה את כל הכבוד הזה (הצאן), דאבינו קאי על לבן, בחינת לובן העליון

   Sefer HaMaamarim 5737 (bilti muga, old edition), vol. תשל״ז, p. 82–83 (the editors’ notes 42, 54 and 61 cite Torah Ohr, Vayeitzei 23c) · יום ה׳ פ׳ ויצא, יו״ד כסלו, ה׳תשל״ז

   Suggest a correction

3. ¶5

   The Rebbe explainsThe Rebbe says this in more than one place

   In the edited sicha of the same farbrengen, 10 Kislev 5737, the Rebbe asks why the Torah dwells at such length on Yaakov’s flocks and why it was the flock that brought „ויפרוץ האיש מאד מאד” (“the man broke forth exceedingly, exceedingly”), and takes up the known question what the Midrash’s “I am His flock” adds to “I am His son.”

   “Son,” in the explanation he brings (his note 11 cites Likkutei Torah, Rosh Hashanah 62d; note 10 the Tzemach Tzedek’s Or HaTorah, Re’eh, for the whole section), belongs to the G‑dly light within hishtalshelus, where a creature still counts as a being; before the light above hishtalshelus „גם בן ואח אין לו” (“he has neither son nor brother”), and Israel are compared to a flock, dear to Him through their bittul (ביטול), which is the vessel for that light. In service, he says, “son” is Torah study, grasped „מיטן כח השכל” (with one’s own mind), while tzon is from yetziah, “going out”: leaving „ד׳ אמות של תורה” (the four cubits of Torah) to engage with the world and make it a dwelling for G‑d (דירה בתחתונים). That very work, done not for one’s own perfection, brings out a Jew’s true bittul, the going out (tzon) of his own existence.

   The Alter Rebbeצאן מלשון צאי כלומר דבר היוצא דהיינו בחי׳ היוצא מלמעלה מסדר ההשתלשלות

   The Rebbe„צאן” איז פון לשון „יציאה” — „אַרויסגיין” פון די ד׳ אמות של תורה און פאַרנעמען זיך מיט עניני העולם

   Likkutei Sichos, vol. טו, p. 254 (Vayeitzei 4; the sicha begins p. 252; note 20, on „צאן איז פון לשון יציאה", cites Torah Ohr, Vayeitzei 23c, Torah Chaim 38b and Or HaTorah, Vayishlach 228a) · יו״ד כסלו תשל״ז

   Suggest a correction

4. ¶5

   A question the Rebbe raisesThe Rebbe says this in more than one place

   At the farbrengen of 20 Cheshvan 5740 (the Rebbe Rashab’s birthday), explaining the Midrash that Yaakov said „ט״ו שיר המעלות שבספר תהלים” (the Songs of Ascents), or all of Psalms, during his twenty years with Lavan, the Rebbe describes those years as „מעמד ומצב של גלות” (an exile).

   There Yaakov was occupied with Lavan’s flock, and tzon, from going out, here means what is „מחוץ לענין הקדושה” (outside the realm of holiness); his stay even brought on a descent of sorts („אם לרמאות הוא בא גם אני אחיו ברמאות”, “if he comes to deceive, I am his brother in deceit”), and, as the Mitteler Rebbe explains Lavan’s claim „הבנות בנותי והבנים בני והצאן צאני” (“the daughters are my daughters … the flock is my flock”), his work there was refining „עולמו של לבן” (the world of Lavan), for which Psalms gave him strength. We note that the paragraph uses the same wordplay for a flock that goes out from above the chain of worlds; here it points the other way, to what has gone out of holiness and must be refined.

   The Alter Rebbeצאן מלשון צאי כלומר דבר היוצא

   The Rebbeוואָס „צאן” איז מלשון יציאה, דאָס איז מחוץ פון ענין הקדושה

   Likkutei Sichos, vol. כ, p. 403 (sicha of Shabbos Vayeira, 20 Cheshvan 5740, a hanachah beginning p. 386; sec. כח; note 132, on „צאן איז מלשון יציאה", cites Torah Ohr, Vayeitzei 23c, Torah Chaim 38b and Vayishlach 39c ff.) · כ׳ מרחשון ה׳תש״מ (הנחה)

   Suggest a correction

5. ¶6

   The Rebbe explains

   In the same sicha of 10 Kislev 5737, having explained the flock as bittul (ביטול), the Rebbe asks why the flock was the main wealth Yaakov earned and took from Lavan’s house.

   The flock, he suggests, alludes to the height Yaakov reached by his work there: „ענין הביטול” (bittul). That is also the precise sense of „ויפרוץ האיש מאד מאד” (“the man broke forth (vayifrotz) exceedingly, exceedingly”): vayifrotz is from „פורץ גדר” (“breaking through a fence”), for through bittul, the flock, one breaks through the bounds of hishtalshelus and reaches the G‑dly light that has no limits, which is why me’od is said twice („ב׳ פעמים מאד”).

   The Alter Rebbeופי׳ הפסוק ויפרץ האיש מאד מאד לפי שפרץ והרבה למעלה ממדרגה למדרגה עד רום המעלות

   The Rebbe„ויפרוץ האיש מאד מאד” — פון לשון פורץ גדר — ווייל דורך ביטול (צאן) איז מען פורץ די גדרים פון סדר השתלשלות

   Likkutei Sichos, vol. טו, p. 255 (Vayeitzei 4; the sicha begins p. 252; note 31, on „מאד מאד", cites Torah Ohr, Vayeitzei 23c and Torah Chaim, Vayishlach 39d) · יו״ד כסלו תשל״ז

   Suggest a correction

6. ¶6

   A question the Rebbe raises

   In a sicha compiled from talks of 28 Iyar 5711 and 10 Shevat 5712, on why Avraham, who kept the whole Torah before it was given, waited for G‑d’s command to circumcise himself, the Rebbe explains how the mitzvos the Avos kept differ from those we keep after Matan Torah.

   The Avos kept the mitzvos by their own strength, without the power given with the command at Sinai, so they could not make the physical objects themselves holy. His example is the one in this paragraph: through the rods (מקלות) Yaakov drew down „המשכות עליונות” (the same supernal flows) we draw down through tefillin, yet when he was done the rods remained plain sticks with no holiness in them, whereas our mitzvos sanctify the object itself. The paragraph stresses what Yaakov could do that we cannot („שיהיו כל מעשיו משכן ומכון להשראת אוא״ס ב״ה”, make any deed of his a dwelling for the Infinite Light); the sicha adds what our mitzvos do that his did not, and that the Avos’ deeds („מעשה אבות”) are what give us the strength for ours.

   The Alter Rebbeאבל אנו אין לנו כח זה אלא במה שמוכן כבר להיות שם המשכת אוא״ס ב״ה דהיינו בבחי׳ תומ״צ הניתן לנו

   The Rebbeאיז נאָך זיין אָפטאָן די עבודה מיט די „מקלות” זיינען זיי געבליבן שטעקלעד, אָן קיין קדושה אין זיי

   Likkutei Sichos, vol. ג, p. 758 (Lech Lecha 1, which begins on p. 757; note 4 cites Zohar 1:162a and Torah Ohr, Vayeitzei 23c; the same point in Yisro, p. 888, note 3) · מלוקט משיחות כ״ח אייר תשי״א, יו״ד שבט תשי״ב

   Suggest a correction

Short quotes only, with the place of each so it can be read in full. The Rebbe’s sichos, letters and maamarim are published by Kehot and by Vaad Hanochos B’Lahak (lahak.org).